지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
1. POW’s camps and POW’s war experience during Korean War
The twentieth century was the century of war, and it was also the century of camps. And the civilian population suffered at least as much as combatants, and one significant element of war experience is therefore not battle in the trenches, but the prison camp.
If we consider the East Asian context, there are lots of the same problems and there are even more complex ones. The Korean War is another example, one which provided one of the defining moments of the Cold War between East and West and where POW(Prisoners of War) problems became one of the most important and international concerns of the time. What is interesting is that many POWs of the Korean War had the same nationality, but were divided by their ideology. These POWs also became vehicles for cultural and ideological propaganda of both blocs.
POW Camps during the Korean War, were the space which the logic of ‘state of exception’ and ‘universal human rights’ were colflicted. On the one hand, ‘POWs’ were recognised as ‘nations’ who fight with enemy, and they protected under principle of human rights bakcked by international sovereignity. On the other hand, they were treated as ‘Homo Sacer’ in ‘state of exception’ and excluded by sovereign power of nation-state.
Under this condition, POW camps in the Korean War undertook fuctions of refugee camp, concentration camp, war criminal camp, political prison, and immigration center. Therefore, I saw POW camps were a microcosm of divided nation state, and I will regard POW camp as a base of Korean modern political system, and condensation of violence which has effected korean society for many decade.
2. Who are the Korean Prisoners of War
When the Korean War begins, there was a standard which determine POW’s status. The Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, introduced a concept of humanitarian treatment of POWs. But the Geneva Convention of 1949 was originally designed for a war between individual (sovereign) nations. The Korean War, however, has both feature of International Cold war and national Civil War, and the nation(state)-building process was proceeding. United Staes, and UN did not recognised north korea as a sovereign state, and this made ambiguous and exceptional condition of POW’s status.
UNC attempted to apply the ‘humanitarian’ provisions of the Geneva Convention to POWs. However, in reality, there was no clear standard to determine who is POW and who is not. UNC defined ‘all captured personnel’ as POW and in the early stages of the Korean war, almost all person captured by the UN force were permanently registered as POWs. But there were many fundamentally different categories of person.
UNC thought that Korean war was fundamentally different from previous wars. They regard that they faced politically and psychologically total war. In this condition, ‘humanitarian treatment principle’ made some POWs as War Criminals. And most of POWs were exposed nakedly to the inhumanitarian, brutal violence of the UNC guards, and of another POWs.
In 1951, after armistice negotiation began, US suggested the principle of voluntary(of free) repatriation of POWs, which means some of POW would not be repatriated. This is the first case that never happened before. As a result, the prisoners of war problem has proven the greatest obstacle to a truce. At this moment, passive ‘protectionism’ went to active ‘liberalism’, but the alienation between theory and reality maximized.
Actually, POWs treated by many exceptional measures, and exploited as a informant and agent of psychological warfare. When they became ‘civilian internee’ or ‘political refugee’, they were regarded as ex-communist sympathizer.
3. The development of Pong-am incident and reaction of UNC
When Civilian Internees in Pong-am island camp resisted against UNC guards in 1951.12.14, 85 prisoners were killed and 113 wounded. They were all civilians who indicated their wish to return to North Korea.
World criticized this incident, but UNC justified their mass killing and defined this incident as one of the ‘Communist War in POW Camps’ and ‘The Great Plot of communists’, and they believed there were ‘The Background’ which control and order all riots. Therefore, UNC thought a communist prisoner of war had to be regarded not as a ‘passive human being’ in need of care and protection but as an ‘active enemy’ determined to fight on in whatever way his leaders dictated.
The United States authorized Clark(Chief of UNC) to appoint UNC Military Commisions for proceeding with Trials of POWs. Trials was introduced as a ‘powerful weapon to fight evil communist’. US considered this treatment as one of the effective solution to separate ‘a few fanactic’ from ‘obedient mass’.
4. The release of ‘Anti-communist POWs’
After Pong-am incident, UNC discussed about release of ‘noncommunist POWs’. As armistice negotiation proceed, UNC removed ‘civilian internees’ from the POW lists. And released and renamed them as ‘anti-communist POWs’ in the midst of 1952. POW’s status changed from ‘enemy who had to be repatriated’ to ‘political prisoner who should be converted’.
The release program originated from economic consideration. ROK government wanted to reduce their burden to feed all POWs, and also wanted to conscript them. Since conflict had continued in POW camps, both ROK and US wanted to protect them from ‘ideological contamination’. In 1953, they called as ‘patriot anti-communist fighter’. In this context, the release of anti-communist POWs became an national media event. They were all given identification cards, and they responded as pledging their loyalty. For US, this was one of the strategy for armistice, to remove main problem and to make enemy recognize ‘fait accompli’. The US tried to give them ‘refugee’ status.
The twentieth century was the century of war, and it was also the century of camps. And the civilian population suffered at least as much as combatants, and one significant element of war experience is therefore not battle in the trenches, but the prison camp.
If we consider the East Asian context, there are lots of the same problems and there are even more complex ones. The Korean War is another example, one which provided one of the defining moments of the Cold War between East and West and where POW(Prisoners of War) problems became one of the most important and international concerns of the time. What is interesting is that many POWs of the Korean War had the same nationality, but were divided by their ideology. These POWs also became vehicles for cultural and ideological propaganda of both blocs.
POW Camps during the Korean War, were the space which the logic of ‘state of exception’ and ‘universal human rights’ were colflicted. On the one hand, ‘POWs’ were recognised as ‘nations’ who fight with enemy, and they protected under principle of human rights bakcked by international sovereignity. On the other hand, they were treated as ‘Homo Sacer’ in ‘state of exception’ and excluded by sovereign power of nation-state.
Under this condition, POW camps in the Korean War undertook fuctions of refugee camp, concentration camp, war criminal camp, political prison, and immigration center. Therefore, I saw POW camps were a microcosm of divided nation state, and I will regard POW camp as a base of Korean modern political system, and condensation of violence which has effected korean society for many decade.
2. Who are the Korean Prisoners of War
When the Korean War begins, there was a standard which determine POW’s status. The Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, introduced a concept of humanitarian treatment of POWs. But the Geneva Convention of 1949 was originally designed for a war between individual (sovereign) nations. The Korean War, however, has both feature of International Cold war and national Civil War, and the nation(state)-building process was proceeding. United Staes, and UN did not recognised north korea as a sovereign state, and this made ambiguous and exceptional condition of POW’s status.
UNC attempted to apply the ‘humanitarian’ provisions of the Geneva Convention to POWs. However, in reality, there was no clear standard to determine who is POW and who is not. UNC defined ‘all captured personnel’ as POW and in the early stages of the Korean war, almost all person captured by the UN force were permanently registered as POWs. But there were many fundamentally different categories of person.
UNC thought that Korean war was fundamentally different from previous wars. They regard that they faced politically and psychologically total war. In this condition, ‘humanitarian treatment principle’ made some POWs as War Criminals. And most of POWs were exposed nakedly to the inhumanitarian, brutal violence of the UNC guards, and of another POWs.
In 1951, after armistice negotiation began, US suggested the principle of voluntary(of free) repatriation of POWs, which means some of POW would not be repatriated. This is the first case that never happened before. As a result, the prisoners of war problem has proven the greatest obstacle to a truce. At this moment, passive ‘protectionism’ went to active ‘liberalism’, but the alienation between theory and reality maximized.
Actually, POWs treated by many exceptional measures, and exploited as a informant and agent of psychological warfare. When they became ‘civilian internee’ or ‘political refugee’, they were regarded as ex-communist sympathizer.
3. The development of Pong-am incident and reaction of UNC
When Civilian Internees in Pong-am island camp resisted against UNC guards in 1951.12.14, 85 prisoners were killed and 113 wounded. They were all civilians who indicated their wish to return to North Korea.
World criticized this incident, but UNC justified their mass killing and defined this incident as one of the ‘Communist War in POW Camps’ and ‘The Great Plot of communists’, and they believed there were ‘The Background’ which control and order all riots. Therefore, UNC thought a communist prisoner of war had to be regarded not as a ‘passive human being’ in need of care and protection but as an ‘active enemy’ determined to fight on in whatever way his leaders dictated.
The United States authorized Clark(Chief of UNC) to appoint UNC Military Commisions for proceeding with Trials of POWs. Trials was introduced as a ‘powerful weapon to fight evil communist’. US considered this treatment as one of the effective solution to separate ‘a few fanactic’ from ‘obedient mass’.
4. The release of ‘Anti-communist POWs’
After Pong-am incident, UNC discussed about release of ‘noncommunist POWs’. As armistice negotiation proceed, UNC removed ‘civilian internees’ from the POW lists. And released and renamed them as ‘anti-communist POWs’ in the midst of 1952. POW’s status changed from ‘enemy who had to be repatriated’ to ‘political prisoner who should be converted’.
The release program originated from economic consideration. ROK government wanted to reduce their burden to feed all POWs, and also wanted to conscript them. Since conflict had continued in POW camps, both ROK and US wanted to protect them from ‘ideological contamination’. In 1953, they called as ‘patriot anti-communist fighter’. In this context, the release of anti-communist POWs became an national media event. They were all given identification cards, and they responded as pledging their loyalty. For US, this was one of the strategy for armistice, to remove main problem and to make enemy recognize ‘fait accompli’. The US tried to give them ‘refugee’ status.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 포로의 전쟁경험과 포로수용소의 성격
3. 한국전쟁 포로라는 존재의 위상 : 투항한 적에서 민간인 억류자까지
3. 민간인 억류자들의 저항과 유엔군의 대응 방식
4. 반공포로 석방 기획의 전후 : 예정된 미디어 이벤트
5. 맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
광주상무대포로수용소 실태 현황과 포로석방 사건 : ‘반공포로수용소’ 사례 연구
역사연구
2019 .12
-
반공포로의 석방과 국민형성의 딜레마 : 김광주의 『석방인(釋放人)』을 중심으로
한국민족문화
2011 .11
-
한국전쟁기 중립국 선택 포로의 발생과 성격
역사와현실
2013 .12
-
한국전쟁기 미군의 공산포로 '미국화 교육'
역사와현실
2010 .12
-
한국전쟁기 공산군의 유엔군 포로 관리와 성격
군사연구
2019 .01
-
거제도 포로수용소 설치와 포로의 저항
제노사이드연구
2007 .08
-
The Korean War 1950-1953
Korea Journal
1967 .07
-
1950년대 소설에 나타난 탈주 모티프와 `망명`의 상상력-포로수용소 소재 작품을 중심으로-
우리말글
2004 .08
-
냉전 초기 사회주의진영 내부의 전쟁·평화 담론의 충돌과 북한의 한국전쟁 인식 변화
역사와현실
2012 .03
-
미국 자료를 통해 본 휴전 협상의 지연 요인 연구 : 포로 문제를 중심으로
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2000 .06
-
반공포로 63인의 타이완행과 교육 및 선전 활동
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2014 .06
-
6ㆍ25전란기 유엔군측의 포로정책과 기독교계의 포로선교
한국기독교와 역사
2004 .09
-
한국소설에 나타난 애국포로의 서사와 반공국가의 불안
한국현대문학연구
2018 .08
-
한국 전쟁영화의 발전과 특징 : 한국전쟁에서 베트남전쟁까지
지방사와 지방문화
2006 .11
-
한국전쟁 60년, 한반도와 세계
역사비평
2010 .05
-
태평양전쟁기 하와이 포로수용소의 한인 전쟁포로 연구 : 한인 전쟁포로의 활동과 귀환을 중심으로
한국독립운동사연구
2004 .08
-
한국전쟁기 전쟁시의 국가주의의 시선
한국시학연구
2008 .04
-
전쟁의 일반이론과 정당한 전쟁론
철학연구
2005 .03
-
스탈린 시대의 소련 강제수용소 연구 : 수감자들을 둘러싼 수용소 내의 사회적 관계를 중심으로
역사학보
2009 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-392-002317168