South Korea blocks activists from air dropping leaflets over North

South Korean police unexpectedly blocked activists from sending pro-democracy leaflets across the border by balloon, after North Korea threatened a 'merciless' retaliation.

Ahn Young-joon/AP
North Korean defector Park Sang-hak hurls anti-North Korea leaflets as police block his planned rally on a road in Paju, South Korea, near the demilitarized zone, Monday, Oct. 22, 2012. South Korea has banned activists from launching propaganda leaflets to North Korea after the North threatened to attack.

South Korea backed down today in the face of North Korean threats of a “merciless military strike” if activists, mainly North Korean defectors, showed signs of making good on their plans to drop propaganda leaflets on the North.

Activists prepared today to launch balloons equipped with automatic timing devices that would enable them to drop tens of thousands of leaflets along with socks, dollar bills, and candy bars across the North Korean border.

However, the provincial police agency, acting on orders from Seoul, banned all civilian traffic to Imjin-gak (the site of memorials on South Korea's role in the Korean War and a large "Peace Bell" symbolizing the wish for peaceful reunification), about 35 miles north of Seoul, where the activists were gathering, in view of what it said were “safety concerns over North Korean warnings.”

The decision to keep the activists from firing the balloons contrasted with the hands-off policy that the government has previously followed in refusing to stop numerous leaflet drops in recent years. President Lee Myung-bak and other officials have often stated that they are powerless to stop activists from exercising their right as free citizens to make their views known in North Korea.

South Koreans appear sharply divided over the government’s apparent concession to North Korean threats.

“The government fears escalating the whole issue,” says Lee Sang-baek, an investment adviser, attending a conference here on the possibilities of reunification of North and South Korea. “Personally I think that’s too bad. They should not back down this way.”

Lee Sang-baek recognizes, though, that others strongly disagree. “The political opposition would say, ‘Stop doing anything silly',” he says.

A local resident, within artillery range of North Korea, strongly supports the government’s decision. “There’s no reason for angering them unnecessarily,” says Park Joong-gul. “We need to reduce confrontation. We don’t need any incidents.”

This time, the government was anxious to tamp down rising tensions between the two Koreas in the run-up to South Korea’s December presidential elections.

The stakes have risen in the aftermath of a surprise visit by the president last week to Yeonpyeong Island, the island in the Yellow Sea that North Korea shelled in November 2010, killing two South Korean marines and two civilians.

North Korea over the weekend again stated its refusal to recognize the “northern limit line” between a series of South Korean islands and North Korea’s southwestern coastline several miles away.  South Korea refuses to permit North Korean vessels below the line – the root cause of a number of bloody shootouts in recent years.

In a rhetorical display to impress voters, the president said South Korea would retaliate directly against the North in the event of an attack on the islands. Kim Kwan-jin, South Korea’s defense minister, said the South would carry out a “perfect response” to any North Korean attack.

Under South Korea’s Constitution, President Lee cannot run for a second five-year term. But he is hoping the conservative Park Geun-hye, daughter of the late dictator Park Chung-hee, who was assassinated by his intelligence chief in 1979, will succeed him against a strong threat by two liberal candidates.

The North Korean threat posed the possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange after the North’s western command declared Imjin-gak and nearby Paju City were “targets of direct firing.” The command warned citizens to leave the area.

Mr. Park, the defector who had organized the leaflet campaign, said North Korea’s threats were “aimed at instigating division between people in the South.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.