Abstract
During the period of military-backed government (1961–1988), South Korea faced various political and economic challenges: poverty and inequality in society; human rights abuses by military governments; and confrontation with the communist North. This article examines Psalm 85: 10 in the light of the political context of South Korea and the way minjung theologians and artists understood and utilized the passage for their struggle with the governments and mega-companies. The article argues that the fight for justice for the poor and oppressed is what has brought a sustainable peace in South Korea, and that although justice seeking and peace-building should be implemented simultaneously as the Scripture implies, if one has to prioritize between the two, justice-seeking has to take precedence.
Introduction
The 10th WCC general assembly was held in Busan, South Korea between 30 October and 8 November 2013. It was attended by the representatives from 345 member churches and took the theme ‘God of Life, Lead Us to Justice and Peace’. The general assembly is the largest gathering of Christian church leaders, and hence the discussions and decisions during the assembly will be significant for the future direction of churches, especially Protestant and Orthodox, in the coming years. Although the assembly chose the theme of ‘justice and peace’, there was very little theological discussion on the meaning of justice and peace during the gathering. There was mention of ‘just peace’ or ‘God of justice and God of peace’, but justice and peace are simply accepted as a vital part of the work of the WCC and the Christian communities that relate to it. I believe that hardly any Christian would object to the notion that these two terms are key concepts of Christian theology and living, and that these two have to go hand in hand. Nevertheless, in socio-political and religious conflict situations, the relationship between peace and justice is often presented as complex and the two are even opposed to one another. In this article, I would like to discuss this question of the ambiguous relationship between justice and peace by examining some scholars on the topic and also the situation of South Korea in the 1970s and 1980s in the struggle against political oppression. In the light of this, I will then come back to my point about the importance of seeking justice in multicultural conflicts.
Debates about the Relationship between Justice and Peace
‘Justice and peace will kiss each other’ in the Psalm 85 is, I would argue, one of the most striking and pertinent passages in the Hebrew Bible when it comes to any form of peace-building. There are of course, plenty of discussions on justice and peace in isolation, but the Psalmist particularly emphasizes the integral relationship of justice and peace. Understandably the connection between justice and peace is of much concern for scholars of peace studies. Johan Galtung, perhaps the most well-known figure in peace studies scholarship, presented models of conflict, violence and peace. He defined ‘negative’ peace as the cessation of direct violence and ‘positive’ peace as dealing with structural and cultural violence as well. 1 He saw that both approaches could be implemented since both have strengths and weaknesses. The problem of negative peace is that it could be maintained through terrible injustice as in the case of the Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. On the other hand, as Oliver Ramsbotham and others argue, positive peace is also problematic: the question of injustice usually amounts to ‘perceived injustice’, which involves the ‘whole of politics’ and often all parties involved genuinely believe they are victims of injustice, and that thinking could be manipulated by outsiders for their own agenda. 2
Scholars of peace studies are quite divided on this issue. In the case of protracted war, Todd D Whitmore, in his discussion of the priority of justice or peace, questions what he sees as the priority of justice over peace in Catholic social teaching and argues that negative peace could be a precondition for justice.
3
He points out that starting with justice is a problem since the various parties are all accountable and it is almost impossible to achieve positive peace until hostility is brought to a halt: the war has to end first, and only then can decisions be made as to what mechanisms of justice should be implemented . . . unless and until the conditions detailed above, wherein people’s security cannot be guaranteed, are changed, those people living in the midst of conflict have neither the time nor the inclination to focus on post-conflict reconstruction.
4
He concludes that on the balance, the practical priority must be on the negative peace as was expressed in the Refugee Law Project as ‘Peace First, Justice Later’. 5
On the other hand, Pauline H Baker argues the importance of seeking justice in the peace-building process. 6 She identifies the tension between peace-building, which involves conflict resolution, and justice-seeking, through establishing democracy and human rights. She regards those working for peace-building as ‘conflict managers’ and those seeking justice as ‘democratizers’. However, she argues that ‘peace is no longer acceptable on any terms; it is intimately linked with the notion of justice. Conflict resolution is not measured simply by the absence of bloodshed; it is assessed by the moral quality of the outcome’. She further emphasizes the importance of public accountability and basic human and political rights and criticizes the ‘conflict managers’ as seeking short-term solutions and insists that solid democratic foundation provides a better chance of sustainable security and peace. 7 Some scholars have tried to search for ways to overcome this dilemma of a dichotomy between justice and peace. Daniel Philpott, for example, argues for reconciliation as a restorative justice which can be utilized in a situation of political conflict. He argues that the best example for restorative justice is South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and he draws his insights from ethical teachings from the three Abrahamic religions. 8 He supports the suggestions that reconciliation complements justice, calling the result justice of positive peace and justice that entails a comprehensive restoration of relationship. 9 His argument is valuable as he brings wisdom from religious traditions and applies it into political peace-making, by focusing on justice as dealing with justice in two dimensions of ‘right conduct’ and ‘right response to wrong conduct’, and on ‘comprehensive right relationship’. 10 However, his approach could be limited to retrospective dealing with past conflicts and is not necessarily helpful for contemporary situations where the balance of power is so uneven that meaningful and just reconciliation may not be carried out and may even perpetuate a more unjust solution for the victims and weaker parties
The above discussions are focused on approaches which balance justice and peace. One can say that, in a conflict situation, justice without peace leads to a fragmented and fragile situation which will continue to perpetuate injustice, and that peace without justice is often used by those of power continue to exercise their oppression over victims of the conflict. Justice and peace have to kiss each other and those who are working on peace-building and conflict resolution agree on the integral nature of these two aspects of peace-building. However, as I have shown above, there is always the question of priority: whether peace or justice is most important in the process of building thrust and resolving conflict in a sustainable way. Very often, the situation demands sacrificing one dimension to the other. In the complexity of human society, there is no absolute justice – the concept of justice is fluid and relative. Justice for one group or individual may be injustice for the other party. Justice can be misused for sectarianism, communalism, partisanship, and so on. ‘Justice for all’ is an ideal concept, which in reality is always challenged by individuals and groups who differ for whatever reason. At the same time, peace can be misused for maintaining security, the status quo, stability, which are priorities for those in power. Often temporary measures for keeping peace become the norm and there is little opportunity to pursue justice and therefore there is a great risk to lasting peace. The scholars of peace-building and conflict resolution tend to argue that justice can be sacrificed for the sake of immediate peace, thereby releasing people from suffering and establishing security. However, I would like to agree with Baker and to argue that seeking justice has to have priority and that one has to be very cautious about too easily accepting a peace option at the expense of justice.
During the period of military-backed government (1961–1988), South Korea faced various political and economic challenges: poverty and inequality in society, human rights abuses by military governments, and confrontation with the communist North. In this period, the South Korean churches were deeply divided theologically into conservative and liberal positions, which posed a struggle for Christians grappling with the political situation. While conservative Christians focused their attention on church growth and spiritual renewal, growing numbers of Christians, led by minjung 11 theologians, stood against the injustice brought by the capitalist market system and military-backed governments. Minjung theologians, together with minjung artists, captured people’s imaginations and brought the issues of poverty, exploitation and unification into the church by employing various art forms to convey their message of peace-building and reconciliation. Minjung theology and minjung arts were vital in creating the civil movement that challenged both the church and society to deal with socio-economic divisions and political conflicts. In this period, minjung theologians and artists were concerned with three areas: poverty and injustice among factory workers and farmers, political oppression and human rights abuse by the military-backed governments, and peaceful unification of the two Koreas.
Minjung Theology, Military-backed Government and Gwangju Uprising
After the Korean War ended in 1953, South Korea went through political turmoil with corruption and dictatorship. Eventually, the military took over the government led by General Park Chung-hee (later President) and through a series of coups d’états, military-backed government continued until 1988. Two of the key agendas of the successive government were economic development and peace and stability in the Peninsula. In pursuing these goals, the governments often legitimized their oppression of the opposition party and disregarded for the civil liberties of the people.
President Park Chung-hee had won two democratic elections in 1963 and 1967 and was due to step down in 1971. However, in 1969, he succeeded in amending the constitution to allow for election for a third term. There were nation-wide protests against this move and Christian leaders, including Cardinal Kim Su-hwan who gave a stern warning about the measure in the nationwide broadcast of Christmas midnight mass. The minjung movement was sparked when Cheon Tae-Il set himself on fire in November 1970 as his protest against the exploitation of fellow factory workers. Cheon Tae-Il was a Sunday school teacher at a Methodist church in Seoul, worked in a garment factory and was campaigning for labour justice with a workers’ group. The incident shook the country and soon Christian leaders took this as a major issue and stood for and with the poor and exploited. It ‘marked the beginning of South Korea’s working-class formation’ and ‘awakened the intellectual community to the dark side of the export-oriented industrialisation’. 12 This meant challenging the status quo of the government and the capitalist market economy of the jaebeol – family-run mega-companies. In October 1972, Park brought in the Yushin Constitution justifying it on the basis of the threat from the North. The new constitution gave Park unlimited tenure in office and powers to appoint the cabinet, prime minister and a third of the national assembly. He now ruled largely by emergency decree, each more restrictive than the last. This brought critical opposition from church groups who openly protested against the government on the basis of religious freedom and attendant human rights.
In 1973, a group of Christians declared ‘The Korean Christian Manifesto’ which condemned the new Constitution. They believed they were commanded to obey God’s word in the historical context, that Koreans were looking to Christians for action, and that they had a responsibility to carry out God’s salvation through action. They saw this as a continuation of the liberation movement during Japanese rule. They criticized Park for ruling by ‘power and threat’ instead of ‘law and dialogue’. They accused the government of limiting freedom of expression and faith, distorting the facts and brainwashing the people. They persecuted their political opponents, criticized intellectuals, intimidated innocent people and exploited the poor and the workers in the name of economic development. The Manifesto warned that no one is above law and Christians are called to be involved in proclaiming truth and justice and fighting for the poor, marginalized and oppressed. They made three calls for action: for rejection of the Yushin constitution and unity for democratization, for renewal of the church for the poor and oppressed, and for garnering support from the world church. 13 The declaration was the beginning of a human rights movement among some Protestant churches, which was led by minjung theologians, but it also signalled the polarization of political positions among Christians, which continues to the present day.
The NCCK held a ‘consultation on human rights in Korea’ in November 1973, and soon the NCCK and YMCA buildings and leading liberal churches in Seoul – Tonghap, Methodist and Kijang – became recognized centres of anti-government activity. 14 There were a number of high-profile human rights abuses by the government, including the People’s Revolutionary Party’s case (1974–1975) where eight men were sentenced and executed the same day through a sham trial, the arrest of Catholic bishop Ji Hak-soon and other Christian ministers and students, the NCCK and National Catholic Priests Association for Justice (check Confessions) were at the forefront of protests against the government, together with the Anglican Church and other denominations, churches were united on opposition to the government.
In 1976, a joint Catholic-Protestant service was held on 1 March in Myeongdong Cathedral, which was rapidly becoming the main centre of anti-government activity. It was attended by the Christian civil leaders who formed the core of the opposition: political leaders Kim Dae-jung and Yun Bo-seon, religious leaders including Ham Seok-heon, NCC General Secretary Kim Kwan-seok, and theologians Ahn Byung-mu and Suh Nam-dong. Twelve of them prepared the Declaration for the Democratic Salvation of the Nation, which was read out during the service by Lee U-jung, head of Korean Church Women United. The 1976 Declaration used secular liberal democratic concepts of freedom and rights for broad appeal and posed a significant intellectual challenge to the rationale for the Yushin constitution by pointing to the importance of dealing with the underlying economic context and North-South tension in order to release funds and resources to achieve democracy and social justice. Park was re-elected in 1978, but he was assassinated in the following year by the head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency and after the chaotic period and military coups d’états (within the military) Major general Cheon Doo-hwan seized power in 1980.
It was at this time that the Gwangju uprising and brutal suppression of the student demonstration took place in the south-western city of Gwangju. In May 1980, students defied a curfew and demonstrated against the government. The government responded by sending in troops to quell the rebellion. In the process of the brutal treatment by the soldiers, civilians soon joined in and a major conflict arose between the people citizens and the government. This resulted in the death of about 600 students and civilians, although the exact number is still in dispute. The Gwangju Democratization Movement (Gwangju uprising) was also a turning point for the Christians in opposition. In particular, some Catholic priests in Gwangju actively participated in the struggle and made it known to the nation despite a media blackout.
The political tensions continued and reignited when Park Jong-cheol, a student who had died in custody, was later discovered to have been tortured. There were large demonstrations, and a commemorative mass was held on 26 January 1987 at Myeongdong Cathedral, at which Cardinal Kim Sou-hwan challenged the government with the words: ‘Are you not afraid of God? . . . God is now asking where is Park Jong-cheol – your son, your student, your citizen – just as he asked Abel who killed Cain’. 15 Protests erupted in all cities. When student demonstrators in Seoul were chased off the streets by police they occupied Myeongdong Cathedral where a large outdoor meeting was held on Sunday 14 June 1987. When the chief of police told Cardinal Kim that they were going to enter the Cathedral to arrest the students, he famously replied: ‘If the police come to the cathedral… to arrest the students, you must first tread over me, then the priests and then the nuns [behind me]’. The police withdrew, after which people called the cathedral ‘the sanctuary of democratization’. 16
Since the activists for democracy in South Korea had come to see the division of the peninsula as the flip side of the suppression of civil and human rights, it was natural that, having ousted the military regime, they should turn their attention to unification. Perhaps the most important event was in February 1988, when the KNCC issued the ‘Declaration of the Korea National Council of the Churches toward the unification and peace of the Korean people’, which made a significant impact both within the church and on the whole nation. 17 The KNCC declaration was welcomed by many Christians but also generated a heated discussion among Christians. It brought to the fore the issue of peace and reconciliation within the churches, which motivated conservative Christians to participate in the debate. The declaration, while affirming the three principles expressed in the Joint Declaration of 1972 – self-determination, peace, and grassroots unification of the Koreas – added the priority of humanitarian practice and the participation of the minjung, who are the victims of the divided Korea, in the unification discussions. The Declaration then proclaimed the year 1995 as a jubilee year for peace and unification when Koreans could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the liberation from Japan.
In 1989, Protestant minister Moon Ik-hwan went to North Korea to meet Kim Il-sung, and was arrested by South Korean government as he returned. From his position regarding peace (reunification) and justice (democratization), Moon Ik-hwan argued that these two terms are inseparable and, while North Korea should work for the freedom and human rights of its people, the South also needed to work towards more equality and just distribution of wealth. 18 For him, one cannot talk about unification and peace in the Korean peninsula without dealing with democratization and justice since they are integrated. Although he did not criticize on human rights issues in the North Korea, which was a major weakness of minjung perspectives on the peace and justice between the two Koreas, he shared the same view as people who wish to make reconciliation with the North. Later the same year, Im Su-gyeung, a Catholic university student, attended World Festival of Youth and Students in Pyongyang and received an overwhelming welcome from the people in the North as ‘the flower of unification’. She too was arrested by South Korean authorities after she crossed over the border.
Ahn Byeung-mu, who is a prominent figure in Minjung theology circles, in his talk on ‘Justice and Peace’, criticized people who accept peace can be achieved without discussing justice and insisted that it is impossible to achieve peace without justice. He argues this on the basis of his own experience in the Korean peninsula in which the government justified human rights abuse due to the need for economic development and national security. He insists that the basis of peace will be achieved when true justice in Korea can be achieved, that is when the minjung are liberated from exploitation and democratization and human rights are restored. And furthermore, he claims that justice and peace should be understood from a minjung perspective which is learnt through understanding the historical Jesus who was on the side of the poor and oppressed. There is no justice without the liberation and autonomy of the minjung, and if one tries to make peace without this justice, it only seeks for maintaining the status quo. Second, he insists that when we discuss justice we have to talk about sharing of material on the basis of faith that everything is under God’s sovereignty and authority. The first step for achieving justice and peace is to let go of private concepts of what we have got. In other words, the concept of ‘public’ is vital in this regard. As the early Christians shared their food with one another, so we should share what we have with others. God’s kingdom is closely related to the concept of food sharing community. 19
Minjung Art, Justice and Peace in the Korean Peninsula
If minjung theologians developed the theoretical framework for the democratization movement, minjung artists made a significant impact on the movement by providing a platform for expressing people’s han and aspirations. The artists were working alongside minjung theologians but were particularly effective among students and ordinary people who were campaigning against the military-backed government because of human rights abuse. In a sense, they were ‘doing theology in the public sphere’ 20 or, as Volker Küster puts it, they ‘devote their creativity as means of communication into the service of the common goal’. 21 They used woodcuts since they can be easily duplicated for flyers, leaflets, books and other printed media without a great cost, thereby ‘democratizing’ art. 22 In addition to Chinese woodcut techniques, they adopted German expressionism 23 and genre paintings of the Korean Yi dynasty. 24 Lee Chul-soo, Oh Jun and Hong Song-dam were among the most prominent artists in that era and, in addition, students produced banners and murals as they participated in demonstrations against the government.
Oh Yoon was particularly interested on the poverty and exploitation of factory workers and produced a number of woodblocks. ‘Dawn for labour’ (1984; Figure 1) 25 is a portrayal of a labourer getting up in the early morning for work. It was used for Park No-hae’s poetry book when it was first published in 1984.
After the night work like a battle, Pouring cold soju
26
into the bitter heart of dawn. Ah, If you continue drinking, your body won’t last long. It won’t go on any longer. . . . Pouring soju into the tired body, For the yet coming labour of tomorrow, For the bitter heart of dawn. Pouring out anger and sorrow Sustains determination that is stronger than soju. In the midst of sweat and blood-tears, Against the wall of despair, Breathing and growing our love, our anger, Pouring out cold soju upon the bitter heart of dawn For our hope and unity Until the coming of The dawn for labour.
27
Oh Yoon (1984) Dawn for labour. 27.4 × 17.9 cm.
The rugged back of the labourer expresses the hardship of work and the tiredness from long hours of work for most factory workers during the early period of industrial development. When government and company owners insisted that for the sake of economic prosperity and security in a competitive capitalist market, workers need to sacrifice, the minjung protagonists were arguing that justice for the workers needed to be achieved first and that prosperity and justice are not mutually exclusive. In the midst of the Yushin constitution controversy, there was a struggle for justice for factory workers and farmers in the context of exploitation by company owners. There were a number of art works done by minjung artists, such as ‘Rice in soup and hope’ (Oh Yoon), 28 ‘Night work’, ‘Labour’s family’ (Hong Sung-dam), ‘Dream of a female factory worker’, and ‘Rice is heaven’ (Lee Chul-soo). 29 They express the poverty and hardship of factory workers in inhumane conditions but also present some aspirations and hope in the midst of despair and injustice.
On the issue of political oppression, Hong Sung-dam, who was from Gwangju and was profoundly affected by the uprising, made a number of art works, expressing the situation, 50 of which were collected and later published as ‘Gwangju’. The work called ‘Mother’ (1982) is an expression of the oppression that young Koreans and their mothers faced during the time of turmoil. This Korean pietà is the ‘expression of the suffering (han) of all mothers in Korea’ 30 as she holds her dead son. Her ragged face and hand shows the hard life and agony she went through in her life to raise her son and now she is holding his dead body. She has lost all hope and aspiration and has only the deep anguish of han, which no one can console. Yet, like the pietà of Mary, the suffering of han may bring justice and then to peace in the troubled land, as Suh Nam-dong insisted that han is the key theme for theology in Korean context and that if ‘one does not hear the signs of the han of the minjung, one cannot hear the voices of Christ’. 31 So the art work not only portrays the despair and agony of the mother against injustice done to her who lost her son, but also provides a glimpse of hope for the future when justice and peace will be restored.
On the same issue of political struggle, the mural in Chonnam National University (1980; Figure 2) 32 demonstrates the Gwangju uprising (democratization movement) as a movement of minjung. In the front of the mural, a student holds a banner of ‘liberation of the people’, and in the background, there are students and armed civilians fighting against military forces. On the lower left part of the mural, there are women and children making soup to feed the resistant parties. In the upper part of the mural, there is a large figure of a student holding a rifle who, together with his colleagues in the background, encourages others to join the cause and to protest. The students and civilian army in Gwangju were portrayed by the government as trouble-makers intent on harming national security, peace and stability and they were therefore brutally suppressed by the military. Gwangju represents not only the deep resentment of the people in that region who have been marginalized for centuries of Korean history, but also people who had undergone the unjust treatment by the authorities and others who exercise power over the weak and the poor.
Chonnam National University (1980) Mural. 16 × 10 m.
Minjung artists were very much encouraged by the development of a reconciling spirit between the two Koreas and the peace movement among minjung activists, particularly over the NCCK declaration and the visits of Moon Ik-hwan and Im Soo-kyeung to the North. There were a significant number of art works created to reflect the desire for peace and reconciliation in the Korean peninsula including ‘Daybreak’ (1987), 33 ‘Wish for the reunification’ (1988), 34 ‘Day is breaking, beat the drum!’ (1988), 35 and ‘Hope for the unification’ (1985). 36 The most well-known work on the topic is ‘Dreaming of reunification’ by Lee Chul-soo (1983 & 1987) (Figure 3). 37 This was a mural at Dolsan Church done in 1983, and later reworked as a woodblock with colour added. The man and woman are representing the North and South embracing each other against the background of the mountains of Korea. They firmly hold one another as if they do not wish to be parted again. They may be crying or they may be whispering as they talk about the past years of separation. This work reminds us of so many separated families across the border. Only a very few have had occasion to meet up for a few days by the arrangement between the two governments. The cloud-bridge in the background portrays the East Asian folk story of The Weaver Girl and the Cowherd (Gyeonu and Jiknyeo) who were separated and only meet once a year in heaven. The art work reflects the sad reality of a divided nation and yet aspiration for reunification.
Lee Chul-soo (1983 & 1987) Dreaming of reunification. 41 × 50 cm.
Minjung protagonists, artists and students refused to accept the notion of the government and large companies that security and prosperity would bring peace and eventually a just society, but argued that justice and peace have to go hand in hand and that there will not be peace without justice. Widespread nationwide demonstrations eventually brought the government to its knees and President Chun was forced to promise a democratic election in the following year. However, due to a split between the opposition parties, President Noh, a former military general, was elected in 1988 and South Korea had to wait another 5 years to see a full civilian and democratic government.
The Struggle over Justice and Peace
Against the protest brought out by the opposition party, the military-backed government tried to persuade the people to support its rule on the basis of peace, security and prosperity. This is understandable since the government was facing an enormous challenge of national reconstruction in the midst of the perceived threat from the North. It is also widely held, although also contested, that President Park made lasting contributions to the growth of the national economy during the period, which established ground for the rising of South Korea, within 50 years, from the world’s poorest nation to the world’s 13th strongest economy. It has to be pointed out that the nation benefitted from relative security and stability, particularly during his earlier period in office. The government argued that in order to maintain security and see economic progress – peace and well-being, the citizens would have to sacrifice themselves. They asked people to sacrifice economic justice (e.g., fair distribution, workers’ rights, working conditions in factories) and political justice (e.g., aspects of freedom of speech, civil liberties, political opposition activities). Since overcoming poverty and maintaining security was a critical issue for South Koreans who still vividly remembered the Korean War (1950–1953), which cost nearly 3 million lives, South Koreans were prepared to accept limits on civil liberty for the sake of maintaining security. However, successive governments gradually took advantage of this willingness to suppress opposition parties and groups and began to abuse their power. Through a series of emergency acts, any civilians could be arrested and charged without going through proper trial processes. There were numerous cases of human rights violations as many of them were accused of associating with the communist North.
The majority of the church leadership, both Protestant and Catholic, tended to hold an anti-communist position due largely to communist persecution in the North Korea from which many Christian leaders in the South had fled. During large Christian gatherings during this period, the association of Christianity with anti-communism was very explicit, and this close identification is still strong among many older Christians. This generation also saw that the adaption of a capitalist market economy was necessary, or a temporary measure, which they believed would eventually lead to benefits for the poor as the economy grew. Korean Protestant churches also operated according to a market economy – adopting competitive approaches to gather congregations which resulted in the rapid growth of mega-churches in large cities. It seems that, in the debate over the emphasis on peace, security and well-being on the one hand and justice and human rights on the other, people are too easily persuaded that peace, security and well-being take precedence as in the case of the Korean situation. My augment in this article challenges this notion and supports the idea that the two seemingly opposed ideas should be applied in equal measure, and if one is pushed to prioritize, one should choose justice rather than negative peace in order to achieve lasting peace.
Justice is not a value-free concept, and it differs from one group to another. In the Korean context, the twin aspects of justice-seeking and peace-building were vital in the struggle to meet the challenge of the diverse economic and political setting of the era of military-backed governments. While not disregarding the integral nature of the two dimensions, I would argue that often justice and human rights issues are side-lined by the urgent requirements of peace and security. Bhikhu Parekh, in his examination of developing sustainable political theories for justice and peace to meet the challenge of multiculturalism, argues that peace is the first desideratum in every society and a multicultural society especially must find ‘ways of holding itself together long enough to enable its different communities to become used to each other and build up common interests and mutual trust’. 38 On the matter of justice, he argues that the state should play a vital role in ensuring impartial treatment of every section in the society, with professional competence and integrity. 39 His argument is very much based on his Indian experience of secularism in the context of multi-cultural and multi-religious society, where the state is called to ensure the equal treatment to various different communities and, although this may seem convincing, in a conflict situation, justice for victims and oppressed should not be left to the device of ‘equal’ treatment.
How then, in practice, should justice be implemented in conflict situations? Acknowledging that there are shortcomings in his argument, the most important contribution of John Rawls on the issue of justice is his challenge to John Stuart Mill’s approach to the utilitarian concept of justice for common good for the majority of the members of society. Rawls saw ‘justice as fairness’, which derived by rational choice of individuals in a fair setting resulting in a distributive principle which benefits the less advantaged. His theory is based on two aims: maximizing of the liberty of the individual (provided it does not impinge on others’ freedom) and providing disadvantaged people in the society with the best opportunities possible. 40 However, I would like to go further when it comes for implementing justice in a multicultural setting – that is a concept brought by Latin American liberation theology: ‘the option for the poor and oppressed’. Liberation theology encouraged a hermeneutics of suspicion that raised questions of power and vested interest. Since it challenged church and state, liberation theology inevitably faced resistance from the authorities in Latin America and in Rome. Because of their work on behalf of the poor and action to reduce the power of the land-owning elite, Catholic priests, nuns and church workers suffered violent attack and persecution in the militarized societies of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s. In the late 1970s, in El Salvador for example, where Marxists opposed a military junta (backed by the US), six priests were assassinated and the Archbishop, Óscar Romero (1917–1980), an advocate of the poor, was gunned down while celebrating mass. Even at his funeral, attended by mourners from all over the world, a bomb went off and shots were fired. Liberation theology in Latin America raises critical questions about who has the right to do Christian theology – the powerful or the powerless? It questions the ideological standpoint of any theology – does it support the status quo or does it represent the interests of the poor and oppressed? Justice is not only fair treatment for all, but active support of the weak, oppressed and poor.
The crucial test then lies in how a society deals those who are vulnerable. This idea of justice was emphasized in the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (1965): Peace is more than the absence of war: it cannot be reduced to the maintenance of a balance of power between opposing forces nor does it arise out of despotic dominion, but it is appropriately called ‘the effect of righteousness’ (Is. 32: 17). It is the fruit of that right ordering of things with which the divine founder has invested human society and which must be actualized by man thirsting after an even more perfect reign of justice.
41
In addition, the Compendium for Justice and Peace insists that justice is not just defined by the law but by the profound identity of the human being: in fact, the Church’s social doctrine places alongside the value of justice that of solidarity, in that it is the privileged way of peace. If peace is the fruit of justice – peace is the fruit of solidarity. The goal of peace – will certainly be achieved through the putting into effect of social and international justice . . .
42
Justice and peace have to kiss each other, but according to Gerard von Rad, examining the theology of the Hebrew Bible, there is absolutely no concept in the Old Testament with so central a significance for all the relationships of human life as that of justice. It is the standard not only for man’s relationship to God, but also for his relationship to his fellows . . . [the] highest value in life, that upon which all life rests when it is properly ordered (370).
43
But more importantly, as Walther Zimmerli argues, justice in the Hebrew Bible is ‘never blind Justitia. It is always understood as an aspect of open-eyed compassion . . . divine demand for compassion towards the weak and the poor’. 44
Conclusion
The organizers of the WCC assembly in Busan chose the topic of justice and peace very appropriately. I believe it is at the heart of Christian understanding of the ‘God of life’ in the Korean context. Throughout the assembly, the integral nature of justice and peace was emphasized as it in is in the message of the Assembly, which was delivered at the end of the gathering, entitled: ‘Join the pilgrimage of justice and peace’. It states that, ‘as a fellowship, the World Council of Churches stands in solidarity with the people and the churches in the Korean peninsula, and with all who strive for justice and peace’. The Message begins with a Scripture passage: ‘By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, . . . to guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1: 78–79) and ends with: ‘Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times! (Psalm 106: 3)’.
The Korean experience of the minjung struggle in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates the key importance of justice for the poor and oppressed. Although issues and concerns are different from context to context, I would argue that the fight for justice for the poor and oppressed is what has brought a sustainable peace in South Korea. Pope Paul VI declared that ‘If you want peace, work for justice!’ 45 Desmond Tutu, speaking on the situation of Arab-Israeli conflict, strongly asserted that ‘a true peace can ultimately be built only on justice’, since he believed that ‘injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: “how do you treat the poor, the hungry, and the voiceless?”’ 46 Of course, justice and peace should be implemented simultaneously as in the Scripture ‘justice and peace will kiss each other’ implies that these two ideas should not be separable, but if, and often this is the case, one has to prioritize between the two, I would argue that justice-seeking has to take precedence.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.