By John Q. Hosedrinker 
South Korea’s Foreign Ministry has again requested that media outlets refrain from revealing the faces and voices of North Korean prisoners of war captured by Ukraine, citing risks to the prisoners and their families. This reminder comes as coverage of the Ukraine-Russia war intensifies and emphasizes the need for “minimum safety measures” in reporting, even if prisoners consent to identification. The ministry expressed concern over past broadcasts that exposed identities, asserting that North Korean POWs are considered South Korean nationals who deserve protection under international law. Seoul has communicated this stance to Ukrainian authorities and will continue consultations with Kyiv to ensure the safety of these individuals.
Read the original article here
South Korea has issued a stern warning against the public exposure of North Korean prisoners of war captured by Ukraine. This directive stems from a deeply held constitutional belief that all North Korean citizens are, in essence, South Korean citizens, carrying with them an inherent right to protection and future reintegration into society, irrespective of the complex geopolitical landscape. The very notion of North Korean individuals being captured as POWs in Ukraine immediately raises significant concerns due to the brutal “generational punishment” system prevalent in North Korea. This barbaric practice often extends punishment to family members, including parents and children, for the perceived transgressions of one individual. The act of surrendering or being captured by what North Korea deems an “evil capitalist” force, rather than sacrificing one’s life for the Supreme Leader, is unlikely to be met with leniency and could very well result in a sentence to a “literal death camp.”
The current geopolitical situation, unexpectedly entangled with discussions about privacy, the use of faces, flags, and filters in conflict zones, highlights a new and complex dimension to modern warfare. South Korea’s position is understandable, and there’s a strong sentiment that Ukraine should indeed honor this request. The potential for South Korea to be a valuable ally in this conflict is significant, and acknowledging their concerns is crucial for fostering that relationship. The idea of proactively managing the perception of captured North Koreans, perhaps by portraying them as severely wounded and helpless, thereby mitigating their perceived culpability and attributing their involvement to external pressures like artillery, has been floated as a potential strategy.
There’s a complex history to this issue, with past instances where North Koreans captured were, at times, even misidentified or their nationality downplayed, with suggestions they were merely ethnic minorities. The context of this warning is vital; while understanding South Korea’s stance, it might be more prudent to avoid public discussion of the matter altogether. If this becomes a major international talking point, it could unfortunately be exploited by adversaries, potentially leading to the use of North Koreans in dangerous, even suicidal missions. This reflects a thoughtful and compassionate policy by South Korea, prompting further inquiry into the details of their commitment to protecting North Korean citizens.
The stark contrast is evident when considering certain historical incidents, like that of a North Korean woman involved in a plane bombing, who later received a pardon. If these individuals are considered “our own people,” as South Korea asserts, then a degree of responsibility for their actions, even those on foreign battlefields, might be implied. However, there’s also a counter-argument that if South Korea claims this responsibility, they should actively contribute more to Ukraine’s defense, rather than solely offering financial aid and diplomatic gestures, especially when North Korea is actively supplying Russia with weaponry and soldiers. The accusation that South Korea does “fuck all to help Ukraine” in concrete terms, despite its constitutional mandate, presents a difficult ethical quandary.
The question of why Ukrainians or others should concern themselves with North Korean soldiers fighting against them, particularly when there was no direct provocation from Ukraine to involve North Korea, is a valid point. The notion of an “unwavering obligation to provide them with protection and sanctuary” becomes problematic when these individuals are actively engaged in combat against Ukraine. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to avoid turning these captured individuals into a public spectacle. North Korean defectors themselves have previously spoken in South Korean documentaries about the grim reality of their families likely being deemed deceased the moment they were captured as POWs, having failed to commit suicide as an alternative.
The idea of utilizing artificial intelligence to obscure faces is another suggestion, perhaps even imposing images of Kim Jong Un onto the captured individuals to undermine Ukraine’s credibility for using such technology. The previous attempts to deny the North Korean identity of these POWs underscore the sensitivity of the issue. South Korea has, in fact, been a significant, albeit indirect, supplier of artillery shells to Ukraine, exceeding the combined contributions of many European nations. This highlights a complex relationship where significant material support is provided, yet the constitutional framework regarding North Korean citizens remains a distinct concern.
South Korea’s constitutional stance, as outlined in Article 3 of its Constitution, recognizes the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands as its territory, thereby considering all residents of the peninsula, including those in the North, as citizens in need of protection. This deeply ingrained principle of national unity and responsibility is a cornerstone of South Korean identity, predating the existence of both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It is this constitutional framework that underpins South Korea’s concern for any North Korean citizen, regardless of their circumstances, and explains why this issue carries such weight.
The argument that South Korea is not directly involved in the war, and therefore not responsible for the conflict, is met with the counterpoint that the captured soldiers likely did not volunteer for these missions and were coerced. It is therefore understandable that other Koreans would feel a sense of empathy and responsibility. The generational prison system in North Korea is a significant factor, as soldiers might be fighting under duress to protect their families from punishment for their supposed “failures.” This grim reality, often framed as a consequence of the Geneva Conventions’ protection against “public curiosity,” is a stark reminder of the immense pressure faced by North Korean individuals.
The idea that Russia, in exchange for nuclear assistance, has compelled North Korea to participate in the conflict, with North Korean soldiers facing dire consequences if they refuse or are captured, paints a bleak picture. It is entirely possible for individuals to exhibit empathy towards these soldiers while simultaneously supporting the Ukrainian cause. The pragmatic diplomatic and soft power gains of respecting South Korea’s request are significant. By blurring identifying features, Ukraine sends a clear signal of reasonableness, ethical consideration, and pragmatic diplomacy, indicating a willingness to listen and respond to reasonable requests, a stark contrast to the unpredictable and often destructive behavior of regimes like Russia and North Korea.
This approach fosters a more cooperative international environment, making Ukraine appear as a rational and approachable partner, unlike neighbors who are unpredictable and prone to violence. While not agreeing to every request might occur, the consistent willingness to engage in dialogue and cooperation is invaluable. The accusation that South Korea is merely opportunistic, especially when North Korea is actively supporting Russia, overlooks the substantial indirect military aid South Korea has provided to Ukraine. The constitutional mandate to protect all Korean citizens, even those captured in conflict, is a complex but fundamental aspect of South Korea’s national identity, and respecting this concern is crucial for maintaining strong international partnerships.