Human Rights Activists Defend Conscientious Objectors

It is ironic how the same human rights activists condemn the ROK Army for the mandatory military service obligation but remain silent over North Korean gulags and treatment of defectors:

The National Human Rights Commission on Monday recommended that the government recognize conscientious objectors to military service on the grounds of religious conviction and work out a system whereby objectors complete an alternative form of service. For now, anyone refusing to enlist or to carry weapons for reasons of religion or conscience is punishable with up to six months in prison or a fine of up to W2 million (US$2,000) under the Military Service Law, just like ordinary draft dodgers.

I got to hand it to the Chosun Ilbo because they did provide a great response to the decision:

The commission notes that other countries have accommodated conscientious objection. But do these countries also face 2 million troops across an armistice line? Already because of the low birth rate, the number of eligible conscripts is predicted to fall to 232,500 or so by 2010, over 100,000 fewer than today, and to a little over 164,300 by 2050, or half as many as there are now.

What does the HRC propose to do if, once conscientious objection becomes legal, everyone simply refuses to serve in the military citing their conscience? The least the commission should do is draw up criteria to distinguish genuine conscientious objectors from draft dodgers in disguise.