[Reporter’s Notebook] 'Leaflets to North Korea' Undermined by a Half-Hearted Response

Government Does Not Block Leaflet Launches Despite North Korean Provocations
'Freedom of Expression' Restored, But Public Anxiety Neglected
Negative Perception of Leaflets Spreads... Outcome Desired by North Korea

On the 4th, when the government suspended the effectiveness of the September 19 military agreement due to North Korea's provocation with filth balloons, officials from the Ministry of Unification and reporters sat face to face. Questions and answers kept drifting elsewhere. When asked about "responding to the public's anxiety," the answer was, "The distribution of leaflets to North Korea is freedom of expression." This was to respect the Constitutional Court's ruling last September that declared the 'Law Prohibiting Leaflets to North Korea' unconstitutional. They also said they would not request restraint.

The Free North Korea Movement Alliance, led by Representative Park Sang-hak, distributed leaflets to North Korea on the 10th of last month. North Korea, which had been quiet for over half a month, belatedly sent up filth balloons, even including feces. If they wanted to counter the leaflet distribution, they could have sent 'anti-South leaflets' themselves. North Korea also knows well that our citizens' level of awareness does not easily fall for crude propaganda and agitation. So instead of 'false' leaflets, they chose 'offensive' filth.

The reaction North Korea wanted came out. Criticism poured in that it was not North Korea but "because of the leaflets to North Korea" that people were suffering. When residents in the border areas raised complaints, Gyeonggi Province Governor Kim Dong-yeon stepped forward to crack down on leaflet distribution. In the Democratic Party, there is even talk of pushing again for the leaflet prohibition law, which has already been ruled unconstitutional.

The essence of leaflets to North Korea is this: to convey freedom to compatriots oppressed in a divided society. In itself, it can shake the North Korean regime's worldview from the roots. For example, in North Korea, the Korean War is called the "Fatherland Liberation War." It is said that the people were protected from the invasion of the U.S. imperialists and South Korean puppets. Absurd as it is, this is the "fact" in North Korea. Leaflets to North Korea break this lie and inform what the "truth" is.

Regardless of this essence, public perception is not very favorable. It is sometimes seen as an unnecessary provocation that incites North Korea. This can be even more so from the perspective of residents living in border areas or those engaged in tourism. How was the government's response? The plan to consider operating loudspeakers toward North Korea was announced by 'Yongsan' instead of the military. The Ministry of Unification issued the stance that it would not even request restraint on leaflet distribution. This was through the very Ministry of Unification that, just four years ago, led the Moon Jae-in administration in pushing the 'Law Prohibiting Leaflets to North Korea.' The applause for a "firm response" was received by Yongsan, while the criticism of "irresponsibility" was borne by the Ministry of Unification. It was read more in a political context than a security perspective. The "half-hearted response," which did not present appropriate measures to the public's anxiety, left the impression of neglecting the issue. While respecting freedom of expression, it further deepened the negative perception of leaflets to North Korea.

It is difficult to simply define all leaflets to North Korea as "freedom of expression." The majority distribute leaflets privately. It is rare to find cases where North Korea provoked in response to such "quiet" leaflets. Some organizations publicize the distribution widely. In these cases, North Korea generally reacted strongly. If someone's freedom provides North Korea with a pretext for provocation and infringes on the stability of the majority, appropriate intervention from a "security" perspective is necessary.

A former intelligence official well-versed in psychological warfare against North Korea answered the reporter's concerns as follows: "An explanation was needed that this shows the superiority of a liberal democratic system where the government cannot arbitrarily restrict private actions." It was a warning that not only the government but also civilians could shake North Korea. What if one more thing had been added? That unlike North Korea, the government prioritizes the safety of its people above all else.