On May 21, 1980, a mass rally of citizens is being held at the fountain plaza in front of the South Jeolla Provincial Office, where the votive tower stands. [Photo=Hankook Ilbo] 

Sometimes, when I post about the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, I receive comments like this: 

"The May 18 incident occurred over about ten days across the Gwangju and South Jeolla regions. It is difficult to grasp the full truth and the complete picture based solely on facts from a specific location and time."

I agree. Grasping the complete picture is indeed very difficult. However, finding it difficult to grasp the full picture is fundamentally different from choosing not to do so. 

This comment was left on a post arguing that we should avoid creating new "facts" through alternative narratives, such as those by author Han Kang. It is the duty of the survivors to uncover the truth of an event. Suggesting that we can accept whatever sounds plausible and favors our side is a dereliction of that duty.

Although investigations into the truth have continued until recently, the results are disheartening, as they have been heavily influenced by political advantages and disadvantages.

"‘If a conclusion of ‘fact-finding’ is reached, it is judged that it would have a significant impact on the overall investigation results of the committee, and there is a high probability that it would be used as material for distorting the May 18 Democratization Movement; therefore, we express serious concern.’" - 2024 Report of the May 18 Fact-Finding Commission

I was shocked when I read this. If an investigation reveals the truth, isn’t it the essence of fact-finding to record it exactly as it is, regardless of political interests? Shuli buzuo (술이부작)—to transmit without creating—is the attitude toward truth we have inherited from our ancestors: record things exactly as they are and do not invent them arbitrarily. 

"‘We observed that the severity is exposed in the fact that the report adopts a standard for judging what is being distorted in the claims about the damage, and what kind of investigation and verification the committee is conducting to correct such distortion, that is similar to the stance of the New Military Administration; for that reason, we opposed the fact-finding decision.’" - 2024 Report of the May 18 Fact-Finding Commission

They opposed the fact-finding decision because their investigation into the distortions ended up resembling the stance of the New Military Administration. What on earth does this mean? It suggests that since the New Military Administration consists of "devils" who must only lie, the fact that their accounts matched the findings means those findings cannot be true. Does this not imply that even if it is the truth, it should not be announced if it aligns with the "villain's" side?

I am not entirely sure what the committee means by the "New Military Administration's stance," but most of that stance was formed through the persistent questioning of lawmakers during the hearings of 1988 and 1989.

67 witnesses were summoned and questioned across 17 sessions. This is essential primary source material for May 18 research. If those witnesses gave false testimony, it is the duty of the investigators to prove what was wrong; if their testimonies align with the facts, a true investigator should acknowledge them. If you only accept what is sweet and spit out what is bitter, doesn't that mean you have no interest in uncovering the truth?

Why was the 2024 investigation conducted in the first place? It was because then-presidential candidate Moon Jae-in, while inspecting bullet holes in the Jeonil Building in Gwangju suspected to be from helicopter fire in 2017, promised to uncover the truth regarding the helicopter strafing, those responsible for opening fire, and the circumstances leading to the initial shots. The following year, the Democratic Party enacted the May 18 Special Act to begin the investigation, which culminated in the 2024 report.

When a state agency is established to conduct an investigation, people have expectations. How was the investigation conducted? Shouldn't they have taken a helicopter up, changed the altitude and distance, strafed an abandoned building, and recorded how it looked at different times?

With the cooperation of the Ministry of National Defense and the use of shooting range facilities, they could have properly analyzed the bullet impacts. Recording it on video would have also strengthened the claims of the priests and pastors who testified to witnessing the helicopter strafing.

Reading the commission's report is infuriating. They either didn't perform scientific investigations, or they ignored the results if they did. They only report on paperwork: "The supply documents show this many rounds were issued but this many were recovered," or "Comparing the helicopter flight logs showed such-and-such entries."

"‘The Committee also conducted simulated helicopter strafing to investigate the penetration angle, depth of impact, bullet type, and direction of the bullet marks on the 10th floor of the Jeonil Building, based on the analysis of two state agencies.’

‘The Committee requested the National Forensic Service (NFS) to compare the data extracted from the Jeonil Building’s bullet marks with those from the simulated fire. The NFS analyzed that there was a discrepancy of about 1.5 to 7.4 times between the two data sets, and about 5.6 times for the penetration depth.’

‘The NFS explained that this discrepancy stems from the fact that the conditions of the incident at the time and the conditions of the firing test could not be identically applied. Therefore, it stated that it is impossible to clearly draw a conclusion regarding the cause of the deviation between the two sets of bullet mark data because comparative analysis is impossible.’" - Fact-Finding Commission Report

The NFS conducted a test strafing with a helicopter under conditions similar to the Jeonil Building incident. But the impact marks were different from those on the building! When fired from a helicopter, the bullets penetrated 5.6 times deeper. This is way outside the margin of error. Does this mean they fired from a helicopter but did so "gently"? Doesn't this prove there was no machine-gun strafing? Since the results were unfavorable, the committee simply brushed it off by saying the conditions were different.

Even if you have a political bias, you cannot simply exclude unfavorable investigation results. They should have at least shown the diligence to conduct experiments repeatedly in various environments to get the results they wanted.

However, the commission's report ends by cherry-picking only the favorable results. "Although the depth is different, the form is similar!" "The conical shape of the bullet impact is similar!" "The angle is downward!" They only pick and choose what suits their narrative.

They should have clarified the altitude of the helicopter and the type of ammunition used. If, as they claim, a helicopter strafed in broad daylight, there were witnesses, and there are bullet holes, it should be something that can be proven clearly. Shouldn't they have analyzed the radioisotopes of the bullet heads and compared them with other materials from that time?

We can uncover events from 4,000 years ago and 400 years ago, so why can't we uncover what happened 40 years ago? Is the technology of 2024 unable to do even that?

The report tries to smooth things over with indirect evidence, concluding that "it was confirmed during the investigation process that helicopter firing was either carried out by all three types of helicopters dispatched to Gwangju, or that there is sufficient probability of such fire." Doesn't saying "there is a probability" mean you can't say it didn't happen, but you are also uncomfortable saying it definitely did?

What is with this obsession with "probability" in a fact-finding investigation? Probability is something you worry about in fiction. And there are even novels that lack that level of probability. Han Kang’s Human Acts depicts psychopathic martial law troops killing everyone, even those who surrendered, among the "pure" citizen militia. It is a "hymn to the boy soldier" that abandons even the minimum requirement of probability.

When we praise such creative works, the truth about Gwangju drifts even further away. While our generation might feel a sense of debt to Gwangju, the younger generation is different. They will not just sit idly by and listen to this kind of "Victory March" propaganda.

The situation is only getting worse. They left a record that even a minor could be dragged to Gwangju, publicly humiliated, and broadcasted on TV for saying the wrong thing. This is a historic embarrassment for Korea, as they publicly humiliated a minor who should have been protected.

Gwangju may be indebted to the youth, but what debt do the youth owe Gwangju? Seeing the recent attitude of Gwangju in publicizing and mocking a student from Baejae High School, I think to myself: Why on earth did I wrongly believe all this time that I was indebted to Gwangju?

Back in college, I even won a prize in a contest hosted by a May 18 commemorative organization. It is now a shameful part of my history. Gwangju has made me feel ashamed.

◆ Author Kim Sung-min

Digital creator, coastal resident, and early-morning cyclist.