National Police Agency data obtained by Korea Pro through Basic Income Party lawmaker Yong Hye-in’s office reveals a significant increase in South Korea’s tear gas exports in recent years. However, several recipient countries face international scrutiny over their crowd control practices.

This surge has sparked debate about South Korea’s ethical responsibilities in the global arms market and its current regulatory practices. Human rights advocates and some progressive lawmakers call for legislation to tighten controls, but industry experts warn against excessive restrictions that could impede South Korea’s defense sector growth and trade.

The South Korean government faces a dilemma: balancing its ethical commitment to global peace against the potential economic impacts of stricter regulations on the business sector.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

The National Police Agency data shows that South Korea has exported over 4.7 million canisters to 25 countries since 2019, with Iraq as the leading importer.

Export trends fluctuate. South Korea exported 866,000 canisters in 2019, but that figure dropped to 421,000 in 2020 due to reduced demand resulting from the pandemic. However, those numbers rebounded to 638,000 in 2022 and surged to 1.58 million in 2023. The first half of 2024 alone saw 713,000 canisters exported, indicating an upward trend.

Within South Korea, however, the use of tear gas to suppress protests and riots ceased in 1999 when the government warned that tear gas use posed asphyxiation risks. The Control of Firearms Act and the Foreign Trade Act classify tear gas as both an explosive and a strategic item.

Moreover, the Defense Acquisition Act requires tear gas manufacturers to receive approval from provincial police agencies and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) — South Korea’s state arms procurement agency — before export.

Additionally, DAPA bases export approvals on intelligence from the foreign ministry and the National Intelligence Service regarding recipient countries’ political climates.

However, institutional decision-making has exposed critical gaps in legislation and implementation.

“No data is being managed regarding monitoring, and no specific manual exists,” Yang Ji-hye, a secretary in lawmaker Yong’s office, told Korea Pro, highlighting a lack of transparency in the decision-making process within police departments and DAPA.

Choi Gi-il, an arms exports specialist and professor at Sangji University’s national security division, noted that the review process is often perfunctory.

“They only check for regulatory violations or restrictions based on a basic checklist, rather than thoroughly examining the domestic political situation of the export destination. This lack of thorough review is regrettable,” Choi told Korea Pro.

He further emphasized that the absence of specific criteria or a standardized manual has led to overly lenient export approvals, especially to politically unstable countries. This revelation has sparked calls for more stringent oversight and clearer guidelines.

In response, lawmaker Yong has proposed legislative reform.

“We are looking to propose amendments to the Foreign Trade Act to restrict not only tear gas exports but also broader economic activities with countries where human rights violations are a concern,” she said.

Riot police deploy tear gas  during the 1987 pro-democracy protests in Seoul | Image: ROK National Archives, edited by Korea Pro

ETHICAL CONCERNS AND INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 

South Korea’s tear gas exports raise significant ethical concerns and potential diplomatic risks, and not for the first time. South Korea halted tear gas exports to Bahrain in 2014 following pressure from rights groups. This action demonstrated the potential for policy change in response to international criticism.

Lawmaker Yong expressed concern that most of these exports still go to countries known for suppressing dissent and political opposition, contrasting this with President Yoon Suk-yeol’s commitment to promoting global peace and prosperity through human rights.

Yeo Ji Woo, a senior activist with the NGO World Without War, warned of potential diplomatic repercussions. “Exporting tear gas that is no longer used in Korea to countries where it could be used to violate human rights could lead to negative perceptions of South Korea among those countries’ citizens,” he said.

South Korea’s own history with tear gas adds moral poignancy to current export practices. Yeo highlighted the country’s pro-democracy protests that took place in 1987 when Yonsei University student Lee Han-yeol died after being struck by a tear gas canister, fueling public anger against the military government.

“Such tragedies should not be repeated abroad,” he said.

Since 2015, NGOs and activist groups have advocated for more stringent regulations and a government ban on tear gas exports to uphold international human rights obligations. In 2022, the Korea Transnational Corporations Watch criticized the South Korean government for failing to adhere to the Arms Trade Treaty, which requires denying weapons exports if potential human rights violations exist.

Choi of Sangji University noted the government’s reactive policy stance: “The government tends to tighten control over strategic goods like tear gas when public opinion or media attention is negative but loosens it when the attention fades.”

South Korean civic groups urge the government to cancel the export approval for tear gas shipments to Turkey in 2015 | Image: People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

BALANCING INDUSTRY NEEDS AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS

National Police Agency data identifies three primary exporters of tear gas canisters from Jan. 2017 to Aug. 2024: DaeKwang Chemical Corporation, Korea CNO Tech Company and Humans Pyro Company.

A 2023 Amnesty International investigation ranked South Korea among the top three tear gas exporting countries globally. The report highlighted the use of products from DaeKwang Chemical and Korea CNO Tech. in countries with documented human rights concerns, including Bahrain, Myanmar, Peru and Sri Lanka.

The investigation called for these companies to implement robust human rights due diligence policies that align with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. 

While the companies did not respond to Korea Pro’s inquiries, industry insiders and former officials have acknowledged that questionable arms trading is a global reality. They attribute the profitability of South Korean tear gas exports to high demand fueled by worldwide protests.

While there is no consolidated data that reveals exact sales figures or profit margins, local media reported in 2017 that “tear gas production is a major export sector for the national economy.” They also reported that tear gas exporters’ revenue was around $74.7 million (100 billion won).

As scrutiny of South Korean-made tear gas exports intensifies, Choi of Sangji University called for a nuanced approach.

“Attempting to regulate everything strictly within legal boundaries could be problematic. A comprehensive, multi-faceted review is needed, considering not just the human rights concerns highlighted by the public, but also the needs of the industry,” Choi told Korea Pro. 

He emphasized distinguishing between non-lethal crowd control agents and lethal weaponry, warning that overly stringent regulations on non-lethal items could lead to even tighter controls on defense exports overall, potentially causing industry contraction.

Choi stressed that any proposed amendments should include input from the defense industry, expert groups and relevant civic organizations to ensure a well-rounded perspective.

“It’s not a simple black-and-white issue. While we should certainly pay attention to public sentiments, we must also listen to industry players,” Choi said.

Edited by John Lee