김민석, 이재명에 “인요한 적십자회장 인준 말라” 건의

Politics, it turns out, can outweigh a forty-year friendship. Two months after In Yo-han, a former lawmaker of the main opposition People Power Party, was elected chairman of the Korean Red Cross, and after his appointment cleared the National Assembly’s ethics review with only presidential approval left, the process hit an unexpected snag. The person who applied the brakes was none other than Kim Min-seok, leader of the ruling Democratic Party. At a dinner at the presidential office on August 26, Kim reportedly told Lee Jae-myung directly that “it would be better not to confirm In Yo-han as Red Cross chairman.” The two men are known to have been close friends for nearly four decades, having shared the experience of the 1985 occupation of the U.S. Information Service building in Seoul. Even so, personal history was quickly pushed aside the moment political calculation entered the picture. A ruling party leader effectively intervening in a presidential appointment to filter out an opposition-affiliated figure lays bare, in stark terms, the yardstick by which the Lee government handles personnel decisions.

In Yo-han was elected the Korean Red Cross’s new chairman by its board in June. Under the normal process, the appointment would move through a National Assembly ethics review before final presidential approval, and on August 24 it duly cleared that review — leaving only Lee’s signature. It was at precisely this moment that the ruling party’s leader stepped in. Park Sung-joon, the Democratic Party’s chief spokesperson, confirmed at a briefing that “Leader Kim Min-seok, after gathering opinions inside and outside the party, told the president it would be better not to confirm Chairman In Yo-han,” while adding that “the president did not specify his response.” In other words, the president avoided a direct answer, effectively deferring judgment — a classic hedge that lets the ruling party’s demand stand while blurring who bears responsibility. More striking still is the personal relationship between the two men: Kim and In are known to have maintained a close bond for nearly forty years since the 1985 sit-in at the U.S. Information Service building in Seoul. This episode proves that even a relationship many would call brotherly counts for nothing once political advantage is at stake. It is rare for a ruling party leader to try to reverse, in a private setting, the appointment of a figure who has already cleared a full confirmation process. In any normal state, choosing the head of a private humanitarian relief organization like the Red Cross ought to be handled above partisan lines. Internationally, the Red Cross movement holds political neutrality as its highest value — the International Committee of the Red Cross earns trust in conflict zones worldwide precisely because it tilts toward no side. That a ruling party leader would step in to shake up the leadership pick at home throws the gap between that international standard and South Korea’s political reality into sharp relief. That the ruling party leader took the lead in blocking the appointment is itself a telling example of just how far personnel decisions can be swayed by political calculation under the Lee government.

The reason the ruling camp has put forward is that In Yo-han did not actively join the vote to impeach President Yoon Suk-yeol following the martial law crisis of December 2024. On its face, this looks like an effort to hold someone politically accountable. Look closer, though, and a very different calculation emerges. In has already passed the formal vetting of a National Assembly ethics review. That the ruling party’s leader raised the issue again in a private setting suggests not distrust of the official vetting system, but something closer to screening out a figure whose political coloring does not match the ruling camp’s own. We have been here before: in the late Joseon era, factional strife warped the standard for appointing talent from ability to party affiliation, and the nation’s strength eroded from within as a result — a lesson that political neutrality in choosing capable people is not optional but a precondition for national survival. The Red Cross, under the seven fundamental principles of the international Red Cross movement, treats political neutrality as its lifeblood. If even the selection of its leadership can be judged by factional logic, there is no telling which private organization might be next. Lee’s decision to withhold a direct answer is not a detail to wave away, either. Publicly rejecting the ruling party leader’s request would be awkward, while openly accepting it would only fuel controversy over improper interference in personnel affairs — the calculated silence reads as an attempt to have it both ways. On the surface it looks like careful deliberation; in practice, it functions as a stalling tactic that lets the ruling party’s demand quietly prevail.

The People Power Party should not let this pass as a minor episode. First, it should formally confirm, through the National Assembly, the exact sequence of In’s ethics review and the subsequent intervention by the ruling party leader, and should question the very effectiveness of the confirmation process itself — through the Assembly’s Health and Welfare Committee, which oversees the Red Cross. If an appointee who has cleared formal vetting can still be derailed by a single private request from the ruling party’s leader, the public needs to hear, in unambiguous terms, that any future appointment could likewise become a target of political retaliation. Second, the Assembly should take up institutional safeguards to protect the political neutrality of the Red Cross and other public-interest civic organizations, including legal reforms that minimize the room for political interference in their leadership selection. Third, under Leader Jang Dong-hyuk, the party should use this episode to expose the ruling party’s pattern of divisive personnel practices. If capable people keep getting screened out simply for having once belonged to the opposition — even after clearing official vetting — the ultimate cost falls on the many qualified individuals excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. The conservative camp should frame this not as a narrow personnel dispute but as a symbolic case that lays bare how the Lee government governs.

What this episode ultimately reveals is a governing instinct for factional personnel management that outweighs even a forty-year friendship. If the precedent stands that an appointee who has cleared every formal review can still be overturned the moment his political coloring doesn’t fit, the fallout will corrode public trust in every future personnel decision. To a government willing to judge even the neutrality of private organizations along partisan lines, there is one question the public must ask: can this administration still be trusted to run the nation’s personnel system? The only answer is a change of government.