On Feb. 21, Korea’s Presidential Committee for National Cohesion established a special commission on “trends among citizens with a North Korean background” to develop a policy on North Korean defectors. The committee also announced that it had decided to use the term “citizens with a North Korean background” instead of “North Korean defectors.” To put it bluntly, I think a committee tasked with bringing about national unity has only stirred up more conflict and strife among South Koreans.
The term “North Korean defector” is a legal term used after the enactment of the North Korean Defector Protection and Resettlement Assistance Act in 1997. Since then, there has been repeated criticism that “defector from North Korea” is inappropriate in both connotation and denotation. Defectors themselves have suggested various other terms, such as “free people,” “reunified people,” and “people whose birthplace is in North Korea.” South Korea’s current government had raised high hopes by promising to expand programs to help defectors better integrate into South Korean society. This was a major improvement over the previous government (under former President Moon Jae-in), which had disregarded defector policy, as evidenced by the forced repatriation of defectors and the starvation of a defector woman and her son. So North Korean defectors were very excited at the prospect of the new government developing a decent policy and terminology for defectors.
But these hopes have been dashed by the creation of the special commission by the Presidential Committee for National Cohesion and the change in the official terminology for defectors. Among several issues we will look at, the first, as mentioned above, is that the term “North Korean defector” comes from the North Korean Defector Protection and Resettlement Assistance Act. Changing this term should involve an official process that covers both the legal and institutional ramifications, including public hearings to solicit the opinions of related organizations and the defectors themselves. But on the same day that the Presidential Committee for National Cohesion announced that it would use the term “citizens with a North Korean background,” the Ministry of Unification announced that it had designated July 14 as “North Korean Defectors’ Day.” In short, the term chosen by the Presidential Committee for National Cohesion does not match up with that used by the Ministry of Unification, the government body responsible (both legally and officially) for defector-related issues.
Second, several suggestions have been made in the defector community and the academic community for terms to replace the term “North Korean defector,” including (as we have seen) “free people,” “reunified people,” and “people whose birthplace is in North Korea.” The Busan branch of the Peaceful Reunification Advisory Committee, another constitutional body under the president, has proposed the term “people whose birthplace is in North Korea” and has expanded the discussion in various ways, such as by conducting opinion polls. This shows how the debate on changing the term is complicated by competing interests. However, the abrupt decision to use the term “citizens with a North Korean background,” which has never been discussed before, does not adequately take into account the opinions of relevant people. The Presidential Committee for National Cohesion said it decided on the term because it is not right to call people who have lived in South Korea for more than ten years “defectors” and it is necessary to emphasize that they are on an equal footing with other South Korean citizens. But if this is the purpose, I cannot help but wonder whether it was really necessary to create a new term to make this distinction.
Thirdly, the three major goals identified by the special commission are policies that are already being reviewed or implemented by the Ministry of Unification (which is the ministry in charge of this issue) and thus are not new ideas. The special commission said it would review the policies of the past 30 years and make policy proposals for the proper integration of defectors at each stage of settlement. Simply put, this can only be seen as both overly ambitious and redundant. The North Korean defector policy is the product of the strenuous efforts of many experts in the field and in academics over the past 30 years. These policies were not developed all at once, but reflect changes in both policy and institutions at different times and on key issues. For a commission with a limited mandate to declare that it will rethink policies shaped over three decades amounts to little more than idle daydreaming.
Fourth, the official mandate of the special commission is “trends among citizens with a North Korean background”. To use the commission’s terminology, only two of the 16 commissioners are “citizens with a North Korean background” and the rest are “citizens with a South Korean background” (so to speak). Two token defectors were included to give the defector-oriented commission better optics. Not a single government agency or organization dealing with defector issues is headed by an actual defector. One might think that if it were really necessary to create a special commission for defectors, it would have been appropriate to appoint a defector as chairperson.
Ignorance about North Korea
To reiterate a point I made earlier, the garbled term “citizens with a North Korean background” reveals a basic lack of understanding of the North. In fact, when I asked a defector what he thought of the term “citizens with a North Korean background,” he said the first thing that came to mind was songbun, the North Korean status system based on family background. In fact, family background and the status associated with it is what the word “background” (baegyong) generally refers to not only in North Korea but also in South Korea. For defectors who faced discrimination and oppression in North Korea because of their songbun, the label “background” is yet another reminder of the discrimination they suffered.
In addition, the word “background” is used in North Korea’s Arirang Mass Games, in which more than 100,000 people, including children, are forced to perform. The group of children who make the famous flip card mosaics of the games is called the “background unit.” The fact that the word “background” is used for a unit notorious for atrocious human rights abuses makes it an inappropriate choice for conveying an inclusive attitude toward defectors.
While North Korean defectors were born in the North and I was born in the South, we are all citizens of the Republic of Korea. I am confused as to why the Presidential Committee for National Cohesion, which is in charge of integration, is so keen on singling out defectors with this completely superfluous special commission. I wonder what the committee members were thinking and if they spent enough time talking about it. I wish they would just leave defectors alone, especially those who are doing just fine as valuable citizens and members of the Korean family.
Perhaps what keeps defectors from settling down and becoming self-sufficient is not a matter of programs and terminology, but how they are viewed in Korean society. I am reminded of one defector’s frustration at still being labeled a defector after living in South Korea for 20 years. They are all ordinary citizens of our country who pay the same taxes and have the same responsibilities to the country. Integration is not a fancy word or an institutional issue. It must be emphasized that integration begins with understanding and embracing our respective places of birth. Reunification begins with the beautiful “trends” of the defectors living among us. Instead of waiting for reunification to happen someday, we must practice reunification now, starting with ourselves. In this sense, we are the agents of unification.
Translated by David Carruth. Edited by Robert Lauler.
Views expressed in this guest column do not necessarily reflect those of Daily NK. Please send any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net.
