Identity, security and the nation: understanding the South Korean response to North Korean defectors
From the Cold War era of the ‘veteran heroes’ to the present view of escaped North Koreans in ter... more From the Cold War era of the ‘veteran heroes’ to the present view of escaped North Koreans in terms more akin to ‘refugees’ and sometimes even just ‘migrants’, perceptions of North Korean defectors in South Korea have changed as swiftly as the number and origins of Northerners entering the South have expanded. At the same time, government policy for these ethnic ‘brethren’ has evolved considerably, particularly as South Korea has seen fundamental shifts in its independent identity, with important repercussions for the way its citizens view themselves as a collective. This article explores some of the key influences behind changes to policy and perceptions regarding North Korean people in South Korea over the period from 1997 to 2012, by applying international relations theory on national identity and its role in policy formation and change through the need to secure different parameters within that identity.
Uploads
Papers by Sarah Son
in North Korea (UN COI) had a decisive impact on South Korea’s
approach to North Korea’s human rights abuses in the several
years following its release. This article interprets moves within
South Korea to support the UN COI’s recommendations as taken
in the interests of ontological security, or a stable sense of identity,
which has also driven the state’s broader initiatives on image
management and nation branding. It extends the boundaries of
nation-branding research by considering why and how a state may
adopt policies that enhance its moral visibility and reputation in
world affairs. It considers how a positive reputation is enhanced by
demonstrating good international citizenship, promoting the visibility
of state identity parameters beyond its culture and core
industries. This article interprets the South Korean government’s
efforts to act on North Korean human rights following the UN COI,
as well as the significance of being seen to be doing so at home
and abroad as security-giving behaviour asserting its moral
authority in relation to North Korea. It explores how a longstanding
policy of relative silence on North Korea’s human rights record
acceded to identity-driven pressures arising from the UN COI and
influencing South Korea’s international image-management strategy
between 2014 and 2017.
Reunification planning tends to focus on the economic, military and political costs and benefits. Yet this preoccupation with the material aspects overlooks the manifold and volatile social challenges likely to emerge from any reunification scenario. Specifically, a unified Korea would have both shared and separate experiences of violence, human rights violations and trauma to overcome.