Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Jin Yeong-seung speaks at a National Assembly inspection at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on the 14th. Yonhap News. 

Guest Columnist, Korea Military Academy Class of '40 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Jin Yeong-seung (hereinafter referred to as "Chairman Jin") stated at the National Assembly inspection, "The December 3rd emergency martial law was an act of rebellion, and I apologize to the public for the military's involvement in it." This statement is not a mere expression of regret but a serious political statement that defines the entire military as "participants in rebellion" and "rebel forces," a direct violation of the constitutional duty of political neutrality for soldiers.

1. Political Neutrality of Soldiers is a Constitutional Responsibility and Obligation.

  Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly states the political neutrality of the armed forces. The Framework Act on the Status and Service of Military Personnel also prohibits military personnel from intervening in or participating in political affairs. As the highest commander of the military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in a position to uphold the political neutrality of the military more than anyone else. However, Chairman Jin preemptively determined "rebellion," a legal conclusion not befitting his position, regarding a case currently under trial and expressed it as the official stance of the military. This constitutes a grave disruption of military order and an abuse of power. 

The Constitutional Court and the prosecution cited "insufficiency of the conditions for emergency martial law," "procedural flaws due to not going through the State Council," and "dereliction of duty and abuse of authority" as the basis for the impeachment of former President Yoon. The Constitutional Court ruled this as "martial law in form, rebellion in substance." The impeachment motion, due to the Constitutional Court's perceived political intervention, removed the "rebellion" element to avoid legal disputes. Former President Yoon was not arrested for "rebellion." 

Chairman Jin's condemnation of "rebellion," which even constitutional bodies did not clearly address, is a grave political intervention that dragged the entire military into political controversy, and he has fallen into being a "political general" himself. 

President Trump mobilized the military and police to strengthen security control and even intended to utilize the "Insurrection Act," which is stronger than our martial law. However, no one in the US military called Trump's martial law "rebellion." Is the US military uncivilized? No, it is to preserve its tradition of not interfering in politics. 

2. Defining Deployment Under Orders as 'Rebellion' is Unconstitutional and Anti-Military Speech.

  On December 3, 2024, approximately 3,000 military personnel were deployed under the President's orders. Article 77 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to declare martial law, and the military acted accordingly. The Military Criminal Act stipulates punishment for disobeying lawful orders. 

Despite this, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff designating soldiers who acted under orders as "rebel forces" severely damages the honor of the military and its chain of command. In the future, which soldier will follow orders in a national emergency? Chairman Jin will be recorded as an unfortunate soldier who fell into the trap of political forces seeking to frame martial law as rebellion. 

3. Distortion of the Military's Existence as a Collective Protecting Lawful Liberal Democracy.

  The military is the last bastion of defense for liberal democracy. As security is directly linked to the lives of the people, soldiers should not curry favor with political power, become tools of specific parties or political forces, or distort military actions based on political interpretations. Chairman Jin's statement is a violation of the military's political neutrality and an anti-military act that shakes the military's identity as a bastion of liberal democracy. 

Since the launch of the current government, the "rebellion situation," with a changed leadership, has plunged the livelihoods of the people into distress, with rising prices and Seoul apartment market values, and a loss of direction in security and foreign policy. There have been cases where over 300 young Koreans have been detained and died in Cambodia after being deceived by employment scams, and numerous citizens have suffered due to fires in key national facilities. In this "rebellion situation," Chairman Jin could have easily avoided defining "rebellion" in the National Assembly inspection, but he instead played a role in igniting a major fire in the "rebellion situation."     

The honor of the military must be preserved. The military is the army of the people. Designating soldiers who acted on orders as "participants in rebellion" before the final verdict of the judiciary, referring to the entire military as a criminal group, can significantly influence the judiciary's judgment. It is truly regrettable and precarious. It is consistent with the constitutional order for the military to respect and await the judiciary's judgment until the final verdict is confirmed. 

4. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Jin Yeong-seung Must Resign Immediately.

  Has Chairman Jin abandoned his conscience to keep his position? Did he succumb to political pressure? Or was it an ignorant statement that does not even know the constitutional responsibilities of the military? He must clarify this. Despite being in a position to protect the honor of the military and the faith in the chain of command, he has now devolved into a political general incapable of issuing military orders by slandering lawful execution of orders as "rebellion."

  Chairman Jin must immediately retract his statement and resign to restore the military's strict chain of command, its original posture, and its political neutrality. The military is the army of the people, protecting the lives and property of the nation. Soldiers in uniform, regardless of rank, must make military judgments that are favorable to national defense, not political judgments. Hasty political judgments and statements can lead to the loss of the noble honor accumulated by the military overnight. The military is not a political organization that guarantees the personal safety of its leadership or condones complacent injustice, nor is it a private weapon. 

The Republic of Korea's military must foster an army capable of fighting and winning, heading towards the light of war prevention, national survival, military justice, and the righteous path of military orders, even amidst temporary chaos and darkness, and must fulfill its constitutional mandate of peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula. 

Park Pil-gyu, Guest Columnist