[Policy Pulse] "Assassin(s)" and the Shelf Life of State Secrets

Records of an incident can be released even half a century later
A strong country does not hide its past
Government records must be returned to the people

Park Suman, attorney at Chambers law firm

The film "Assassins," which deals with the August 15, 1974, shooting incident targeting President Park Chung-hee, has drawn considerable attention. It highlights questions that are difficult to explain based solely on the government's account. One such question is that the number of shots fired does not match the number of bullets actually made public. Who was behind the incident also appears to remain a matter of debate.

The purpose of this article is not to establish the truth about the incident. Seeing that even now, more than half a century later, relevant records have still not been sufficiently disclosed, I want to raise a fundamental question: In a democratic country, how long should secrets remain secret?

Amid a long history of division and confrontation, "secrecy" has been regarded as essential to the survival of the state. But when those in power hide behind a veil of secrecy, conspiracy theories flourish, fed by a lack of information. This is especially evident in the military and investigative agencies, where external oversight is difficult. The Dreyfus Affair in France clearly shows what can happen when a military organization puts its reputation ahead of the truth. The films "A Few Good Men" and "Casualties of War" also expose how the truth can be concealed within closed organizations. In Korea, too, tragedies have been repeated when closed organizations put their own interests ahead of the truth, including the cover-up of Park Jong-chul's death under torture, the death of Private First Class Heo Won-geun, and allegations of outside pressure on the investigation into Corporal Chae Su-geun's death in the line of duty. Efforts by truth-finding committees have also faced difficulties because of conflicts with agencies that avoid releasing internal records. This is largely because there is generally no accountability for withholding information.

Examples from abroad offer lessons for us. In the United States, after the 1991 film "JFK," which examined doubts surrounding Kennedy's assassination, sparked public debate, Congress passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act the following year. The law required relevant records to be transferred and made public within 25 years, except in cases where disclosure would pose a grave threat to national security. In the United Kingdom, records produced by the government are generally transferred to the National Archives after 20 years and reviewed for public release. When records need to remain closed, the government itself must explain why. This approach is significant because it allows the public to judge for itself by making records available, rather than leaving the task of establishing the truth to the state. Germany's decision to make Stasi secret files fully accessible immediately after reunification shows that declassification is not merely about disclosing information; it is central to democratic oversight.

Declassification is central to democratic oversight. During the Joseon Dynasty, court historians recorded everything the king said and did in historical drafts, which were preserved as the "Annals of the Joseon Dynasty." Even the king was not allowed to read these drafts. Korea's Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions stipulates that information must be withheld if it concerns national security, national defense, unification, foreign relations, or other such matters and its disclosure is deemed likely to substantially harm the state's significant interests. However, the system remains relatively inadequate when it comes to the principle of making records public and procedures for declassification. Shouldn't we take a more proactive approach to declassification?

We need a system under which records related to national security are generally made public after a certain period. Decisions on disclosure should be made by an independent body, rather than by the organization that produced the records. The right of victims and their families to access records concerning human rights violations should be guaranteed. The "significant interests of the state," which serve as grounds for keeping records secret, should be limited to cases where secrecy is necessary to prevent specific harm, and the state should bear the burden of proof. Furthermore, for major events in modern history, we should consider enacting special legislation like the United States' President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act.

Watching the film "Assassins" reminded me once again that our society has become a completely different country from the Republic of Korea of more than 50 years ago. Today's Republic of Korea has a world-class economy and democracy. The claim that disclosing records of an incident from half a century ago would undermine national security is no longer persuasive. A strong country is not one that hides its past, but one that can disclose and explain it, and earn the trust of its people. To that end, records produced by the state must one day be returned to the people.

Park Suman, attorney at Chambers law firm

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.