In 2024, the 'May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission' published a comprehensive report and held a public briefing. However, some commissioners claimed that "even after four years of investigation from December 2019 to December 2023, they failed to find evidence for certain events, which were then manipulated into 'facts' to align with the claims of so-called 'May 18 organizations.'" The photo shows Gwangju in May 1980.

The most recent investigative report on the May 18 Democratization Movement was released in June 2024 by the Truth Commission. I doubt whether anyone has actually read this report thoroughly. Just today, I read a text that partially quoted it to exaggerate the number of victims.

This Truth Commission report cites the 'Memoirs of Chun Doo-hwan.' Did the Gwangju High Court not ban the publication and distribution of the 'Memoirs of Chun Doo-hwan' on the grounds of defamation by false facts?

What kind of contradiction is this—blocking access to the 'Memoirs of Chun Doo-hwan' by labeling them as false, while simultaneously citing them to uncover the truth?

The Truth Behind the Death of Private Kwon Yong-un

The Gwangju High Court's ruling was issued in September 2022, and this report was released in June 2024. The report even goes so far as to cite the Gwangju High Court's ruling.

A key issue is the incident where Private Kwon Yong-un was struck and killed by an armored vehicle. This is a critical event, as it serves as a basis for judging whether the subsequent mass shooting by martial law troops was a crisis situation that necessitated self-defensive fire.

One side claims that Private Kwon was struck by an armored vehicle hijacked by protesters, while the other side argues that when a protester-hijacked armored vehicle rushed forward, a martial law military armored vehicle backed up in surprise, striking him.

Let’s examine how the Truth Commission investigates the truth.

"Therefore, it was judged that if this investigation report were to be approved as a 'truth discovery' by the plenary session as is, it would have a significant impact on the overall investigation results of the committee, and serious concerns were expressed in that it is highly probable that it will be utilized as material for distorting the May 18 Democratization Movement in the future."

"Concerns were expressed that the investigation into the damages suffered by martial law troops could instead act as a factor that reinforces further distortion of the May 18 Democratization Movement or the 'both-sides-are-to-blame' theory (양시양비론) asserted by most witnesses for the martial law troops during the 1988 National Assembly hearings."

"It was viewed that the report reveals its seriousness in that it adopts criteria similar to the position of the New Military Group when judging what is distorted and what investigations and verifications the committee is conducting to correct such distortions; for that reason, they opposed the decision on the truth."

"In contrast, commissioners Lee Jong-hyeop, Lee Dong-wook, and Cha Ki-hwan voted in favor of the report's resolution on the grounds that, since there are conflicting statements and contradictory records regarding whether the armored vehicle belonged to the protesters or the martial law troops, it is appropriate not to reach a conclusion on which vehicle caused the death."

I am skeptical whether this is a proper attitude for an organization funded by taxpayer money to investigate the truth. Is it not an attitude of trying to gloss over things because revealing the objective truth would expose the faults of both the martial law troops and the protesters?

The Contradiction of the Truth Commission Obstructing the Discovery of Truth

The argument that "it is appropriate not to reach a conclusion because there are conflicting statements and contradictory records" is absurd.

What is preposterous is that while they conclude it cannot be proven, they cite the Gwangju High Court's ruling.

"Protesters threw Molotov cocktails at the armored vehicle of the martial law troops positioned at the front of the paratroopers, and the martial law troops' armored vehicle performed an urgent reverse maneuver. Subsequently, an urban-type wheeled armored vehicle driven by a member of the protest group rushed toward the direction where the martial law troops were positioned. Amidst these two complex events occurring simultaneously, the martial law troops' defensive line collapsed, and the soldiers fled behind the provincial office fountain and to both sides of the road. In the process, Private Kwon Yong-un of the paratroopers died." - Gwangju High Court Ruling

Even while citing the ruling, the Truth Commission decides that the truth cannot be established. Doesn't this mean they disagree with the ruling? They do not explain why they disagree. They merely state that there is a risk of it being used as material for distorting May 18, that it could be a factor reinforcing the 'both-sides-are-to-blame' theory, and that there is a seriousness in siding with the New Military Group.

Why is the Truth Commission making such judgments? Is the purpose of the Truth Commission not to establish the truth? Are they a committee that acts out (making a fuss) to prevent the truth from being uncovered?

By investigating in this manner, the more they investigate, the more ambiguous the truth becomes. Perhaps making the truth ambiguous is the goal itself.

In 2024, the 'May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission' published a comprehensive report (pictured) and held a public briefing, yet they displayed inconsistency by citing the 'Memoirs of Chun Doo-hwan'—which they themselves had taken the lead in banning from publication and distribution due to defamation by false facts.

◆ Writer Kim Sung-min

Digital creator, coastal resident, early-morning cyclist.