Demolition VS Preservation

The Former Provincial Office in Gwangju

By Kim Ye-nari, Guest Reporter

The sky was gloomier than usual on that day of May 1980 in Gwangju. There were plumes of tear gas on Geumnam Street where government troops and thousands of civilians confronted each other. It seemed that neither would yield to the other. All of the sudden, bullets from the troops went into the crowd, and people ran around everywhere without even a moment to breathe. By the time the large square in front of the Jeonnam Provincial Office Building instantly turned into chaos in seconds, a man was sobbing bitterly and holding his brother who was just killed by a bullet.

Do you remember this tragic scene from the movie called “May 18?” If you are a citizen of Gwangju, I am sure that you have heard of that day at least once in your life. Moreover, you may have seen the Provincial Office Building many times which is symbolized as 'the shrine of the Gwangju Democratic Uprising' in the movie. This building is now in danger of being torn down in opposition to the spirit of victims who defended the building against government troops with their blood in 1980. While the younger generation is gradually forgetting the meaning of 'Gwangju Uprising,' Chonnam Tribune asks what happened to that building?

Controversy over the Demolition

The origin of the controversy began by constructing the National Asian Culture Complex (NACC), which is part of a national project enacted by ex-President Roh Moo-hyun’s administration in 2004. The government has intended to develop Gwangju as a Hub City of Asian Culture (HCAC) and planned to construct the NACC on the site of the former Office of Jeonnam Province by 2012. A couple of months ago, the Office of HCAC has already carried out the groundbreaking of the NACC and pushed to tear down the former building. However, there is still controversy on this matter, because the building is a historically important place in the city known for its sprit of democracy.

In particular, several civic groups related to the May 18th Uprising, including ‘The May 18 Memorial Foundation,’ has recently organized a special committee to defend the Provincial Office Building. If there is no breakthrough in negotiations with the government, the committee will continue its protest against the Office of HCAC. Then, why is the committee opposed to the HCAC plan even after it has been announced four years ago? Kim Kong-hui, a spokesman of the May 18th Special Committee said that the Office of HCAC made its members confused about what building we can call ‘the annex.’ He also said, “We did not know that the building that they planned to tear down was the main building, so we did not take it seriously for many years. However, we recently found out that the building was the one that we usually consider as the main building. They decided to demolish two thirds of the Provincial Office Building. We cannot accept that.”

Seemingly, the Former Provincial Office looks like one connected building, but the one on the left side was constructed in the 1920s during the period of Japanese imperialism and the other on the right side was added to the original one in the 1970s. The Office of HCAC has called the building constructed in 1970s as ‘the annex’. The spokesman added, “Most Gwangju citizens still do not know the facts. If they knew them, I strongly believe nobody would agree on demolishing the historical site of Korean democracy.

Modernizing the Spirit of May 18th

Both, the May 18th Special Committee and the Office of HCAC have already held a forum about the matter, but neither of them came to an agreement. In the meantime, the Office of HCAC insists that if the annex will not be torn down, it has to change everything of the project. It is obvious that changing the plan will require a lot of time and money. The Office of HCAC also said, “Constructing the NACC is not a big deal, because all facilities of the NACC will be built underground so that the Provincial Office Building will be embossed more than any other facility. If the sit-down demonstration will be continued illegally, we will take strong action.”

Concerning the two sides of opinions, Kim Ki-gon, a head researcher of the May 18th Research Center at CNU said, “The most important thing on this matter is to make sure what the identity of HCAC is. When the government first mapped the project out, both sides agreed that the fundamental concept of the project has to be in league with the sprit of May 18th. I personally agree with preserving the Former Provincial Office, but we need to point out how to modernize the meaning of May 18th in the HCAC project and use it in an effective way. Therefore, the role of three groups, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and civic groups is very important. They have to cooperate with each other as one.”

The Keys to Solve the Problem

In fact, there are several cases where other countries have made efficient use of historical sites not only to commemorate their significance, but also to get economic benefits. A representative example is Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland which is well-known as the symbol of the Holocaust. After World War II, Poland decided to preserve the spot and constructed a museum there. UNESCO then listed this site as cruel proof of history as a World Heritage site. As we look at this example, it is very meaningful to reconstitute historical sites and the sprit of history at the present time.

The government, therefore, needs to keep in mind the fundamental concept of the project as they aimed at first and look back on how the project is going on now. Moreover, the government has to know that the keys to solve the problem are communication and compromise on both sides so that we can all honor the memory of the Gwangju Democratic Uprising and its historical elements. By practicing effective actions, I expect the government could make Gwangju known across the world as a symbol of Asian human rights and peace, as well as a remembrance area that can be memorable in the history of the world.