The South Korean Defense Ministry, in conjunction with the Korea Military Academy (KMA), proposed the removal of a bust of General Hong Beom-do from the academy’s grounds. This decision has ignited debates, primarily concerning the Yoon administration’s interpretation of Korean contemporary history, which hints at its current worldview.

Five busts of Korean independence fighters were installed at the entrance of the KMA’s main pavilion in March 2018, during President Moon Jae-in’s tenure. Hong’s bust was chosen to commemorate the Korean Independence Army’s first major victory over Imperial Japanese forces at the 1920 Battle of Fengwudong, where Hong was the commander.

However, concerns about Hong’s political associations post-1927 have overshadowed his earlier contributions. The Defense Ministry highlighted his links to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with which he was affiliated until his death in 1943.

In a late August National Assembly Defense Committee hearing, Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup confirmed the KMA’s intentions to remove all five busts from its pavilion. Lee stated that the primary concern centered on the appropriateness of featuring individuals with communist ties in an institution committed to defending the country from North Korea.

Shin Won-sik, former Deputy Chief of the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff and Yoon’s pick for the next defense minister, endorsed the removal. During a press conference on Aug. 29, he emphasized that Hong’s communist affiliations were inconsistent with the KMA’s values, going as far as suggesting that retaining the bust would “deny the nation’s identity.”

BIPARTISAN BACKLASH

The Defense Ministry’s rationale for relocating Hong’s bust has faced significant public pushback. A poll by National Barometer Survey revealed that 58% of South Koreans oppose the removal. 

Scholars and politicians from across the political spectrum also voiced their concerns.

Former President Moon Jae-in called on the presidential office to resolve the controversy, cautioning against diminishing the contributions of independence soldiers due to their associations with the Soviet Union, suggesting it might portray South Korea as a “narrow-minded” nation.

Woo Won-shik, a Democratic Party lawmaker and chairman of the Hong Beom-do Memorial Association, criticized the government’s decision, saying it fuels public division.

Even figures from the conservative People Power Party (PPP) have expressed their reservations. Lee Jun-seok and Hong Jun-pyo, both former party leaders, expressed that they felt the government was overly harsh in its portrayal of Hong.

“I believe that relocating the statue of General Hong Beom-do, who is considered a hero in conservative circles, is historically and politically unjust,” Cheon Ha-ram, another PPP member, told Korea Pro.

Shin Joo-Baek, a former director of the Institute of Korean Independence Movement Studies, emphasized the importance of viewing Hong’s life through a historical lens. 

“Critics might be disregarding the challenges and circumstances Hong faced. Hong’s primary motive was national survival. He had no intention of harming the independence movement,” Shin told Korea Pro.

Similarly, Cheon Ha-ram noted to Korea Pro that branding Hong as contradictory to South Korean identity due to his Soviet ties is misguided.

“They are underestimating the intelligence of the Korean people. The current government is showing a lack of historical understanding,” Lee Hyung-jin, chairman of the Korean Liberation Army Memorial Association, told Korea Pro.

Then South Korean President Moon Jae-in and First Lady Kim Jung-sook pay their respects to General Hong Beom-do at the Daejeon National Cemetery, Aug. 18, 2021. | Image: Moon Jae-in’s Twitter page

REFRAMING SOUTH KOREAN IDENTITY

The Yoon administration has faced recurring scrutiny over its approach to revising contentious historical issues, often favoring the New Right movement’s narratives.

There has been notable contention surrounding the government’s endorsement of a Syngman Rhee library. Conservatives often hail Rhee — South Korea’s first president — as a foundational figure, while progressives spotlight his authoritarian leanings and his fall from power after the 1960 April Revolution.

Critics also took issue with the Ministry of Patriot and Veterans Affairs when it removed a descriptor of General Paik Sun-yup as a “pro-Japanese collaborator” from the National Cemetery’s records. Paik’s legacy includes his esteemed rank as South Korea’s first four-star general, his valor in the Korean War and his earlier role in a Manchukuo Imperial Army unit designed to suppress independence fighters during Korea’s Japanese occupation.

Paik and Rhee were commemorated with statues at the Dabu-dong War Memorial in July.

“The Yoon administration appears to wish to separate individuals based on their alignment with South Korea’s identity,” the PPP’s Cheon Ha-ram told Korea Pro. “It differentiates between pro-democracy and communist groups, placing a higher emphasis on those who played key roles in founding, defending and developing South Korea.”

However, the administration’s differing attitudes toward figures like Paik, Rhee and Hong have raised issues among experts. Former Director Shin from the Institute of Korean Independence Movement Studies and Lee Hyung-jin of the Korean Liberation Army Memorial Association voiced concerns about the government’s potentially skewed historical perspective.

“Explaining the history of the independence movement using only an anti-communist perspective gives an incomplete view,” Shin told Korea Pro, drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

Lee expressed frustration with the government’s attempt to retrofit historical narratives for political ends, stressing the need to see history “as it is.” He further connected the government’s historical perspective to the New Right movement, which he claims discredits the ROK’s independence movement, stemming from its assertion that South Korea’s foundation was in 1948.

“They seek to galvanize the far-right through ideological rallying,” Lee told Korea Pro.

Highlighting the broader implications, Henry Em, a professor of Korean history at Yonsei University, drew attention to the Yoon administration’s perceived initiative to “reframe South Korea’s identity.”

Em characterized the implications as “genuinely frightening.”

“The implicit message is that one cannot simultaneously identify as leftist or communist and be authentically South Korean,” Em told Korea Pro.

Edited by John Lee