By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During this week’s martial law operation, Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-keun refused an order from then Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to forcibly remove lawmakers from the National Assembly. The General deemed this order illegal and chose to disobey it, citing his own judgment. He also prohibited the distribution of live ammunition to his troops due to concerns over excessive force. This act of insubordination was undertaken despite the General’s awareness of potential consequences.
Read the original article here
The South Korean Army special warfare commander’s defiance of an order to forcibly remove lawmakers from the National Assembly building is a compelling story of principled resistance against potentially illegal actions. This act of insubordination, while risky, highlights a crucial conflict between military obedience and upholding the law.
The commander explicitly stated that he refused to carry out the order from the then-Defense Minister, Kim Yong-hyun, because he deemed dragging out lawmakers an illegal act. This decision, born from his own judgment, underscores the commander’s commitment to the rule of law, even if it meant facing consequences for insubordination.
Furthermore, the commander’s actions extended beyond simply refusing the order. He also proactively prevented his unit from being armed with live ammunition, recognizing the potential for unjustified violence. This preemptive measure demonstrates a keen awareness of the potential for the situation to escalate into a dangerous and unlawful conflict.
This incident points to a broader political crisis within South Korea, where tensions between military and political forces are palpable. It serves as a stark reminder of the vital importance of a military’s allegiance to the constitution, not to individual political leaders. The commander’s actions directly contrast with the potential for a military to become a tool for a despot, a scenario many have voiced concerns about.
The subsequent denials from troops on the ground at the National Assembly indicate an attempt to cover up the events and potentially obfuscate the chain of command involved in ordering the potentially illegal action. A thorough investigation into the incident is warranted to uncover the full truth and ensure accountability. While such cover-ups are disheartening, the commander’s willingness to speak out against the order inspires hope in the face of potential governmental overreach.
The commander’s actions are even more significant considering the potential for abuse of power by those in authority. The lawmakers and their supporters were prepared to resist arrest, even to the point of risking their lives, highlighting the seriousness of the situation and the extent to which the order was perceived as an illegitimate attempt to seize power. The failed attempt speaks volumes about the strength of resistance against the actions of the government.
The incident resonates with concerns beyond South Korea’s borders. Comparisons are drawn to similar potential scenarios in other nations, particularly the United States. The parallel between the attempted actions and the anxieties surrounding potential governmental overreach in other democracies prompts reflection on the vital role of a principled military in safeguarding democratic institutions.
While some have criticized the commander’s actions and expressed concerns about insubordination, many have applauded his decision. This split in opinion underscores the deep-seated anxieties and differing interpretations surrounding the balance of power between civilian leadership and the military.
The discussion of the commander’s actions has sparked debates on the ethical considerations of military obedience, the importance of upholding the rule of law, and the vital role of a military sworn to defend its constitution rather than individual politicians. The controversy surrounding this incident necessitates a deeper examination of the relationships between military, government, and the citizenry.
Many commentators praise the commander’s dedication to his oath and his nation above loyalty to a single politician. This sentiment reflects a widespread desire for integrity and accountability within the military and government. Similar instances in other countries where military officers resisted unlawful orders are cited, illustrating the global significance of this issue.
The South Korean commander’s defiance serves as a powerful case study in the delicate balance between military obedience and the preservation of democratic principles. His actions, though potentially dangerous, provide a valuable lesson in the importance of moral courage and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. His story underscores the need for robust mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power and to hold those who disregard the law accountable.