Archive for the ‘UNDP’ Category

UN denies firing ‘whistleblower’

Saturday, July 7th, 2007

BBC
7/7/2007

A UN agency has denied firing an employee after the man questioned alleged financial irregularities at its North Korean operations.

Artjon Shkurtaj asked for protection as a whistleblower after losing his job in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in North Korea.

Mr Shkurtaj said he found fake US bills in an office safe and local staff were paid in euros, and not local currency.

The UNDP denied any wrongdoing, and keeping improper accounts.

UN audit

The agency has been accused by the US administration of handing over cash to the North Korean regime without proper accounting or paperwork, the BBC’s Laura Trevelyan said from New York.

The implication is the UN allowed millions of dollars to go to the North Korean government instead of going to programmes to help people in poverty, our correspondent said.

The UN carried out an audit in June and said that while there had been breaches of rules, there had been no systematic diversion of UN money to North Korean authorities.

“UNDP has invited the individual to submit all relevant information to the UNDP office charged with undertaking internal inquiries, but he has so far declined to do so,” a spokesman from the agency said.

UN deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said the UN Ethics Office was looking into Mr Shkurtaj’s appeal for whistleblower status.

Share

U.S., Critic of N. Korea Payments, Also Sends Millions

Monday, June 25th, 2007

Washington Post, Page A18
Colum Lynch
6/24/2007

Over the past six months, the Bush administration has repeatedly criticized the U.N. Development Program for channeling millions of dollars in hard currency into North Korea to finance the agency’s programs, warning that the money might be diverted to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

But the United States also has funneled dollars to Kim Jong Il’s regime over the past decade, financing travel for North Korean diplomats and paying more than $20 million in cash for the remains of 229 U.S. soldiers from the Korean War. And in a bid to advance nuclear talks, the Bush administration recently transferred back to North Korea about $25 million in cash that the Treasury Department had frozen at Banco Delta Asia, a Macao-based bank that the United States had accused of laundering counterfeit U.S. currency on behalf of North Korea.

Such transactions emphasize philosophical differences in the administration over the wisdom of engaging with North Korea and highlight the compromises that the United States, the United Nations and others face in dealing with Pyongyang.

“The U.S. has no moral high ground,” said Michael Green, a former special assistant to President Bush who served as senior director for Asian affairs in the National Security Council. “In terms of bribing Kim Jong Il, UNDP is a minor offender.”

North Korea’s regime has skillfully extracted hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes from foreign companies and governments, and has persuaded South Korea and China to supply billions of dollars’ worth of food and fuel with virtually no oversight. South Korea reportedly paid hundreds of millions to bribe the North Korean leader to attend a 2000 summit, and China agreed in 2005 to build a $50 million glass factory for North Korea in exchange for its participation in six-nation nuclear talks.

Such payments are “part and parcel of doing business in North Korea,” said L. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Mansfield Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes U.S. relations with Asian countries.

Since 1995, the United States has provided the North Korean regime with more than $1 billion worth of food and fuel in the hopes of forestalling famine — and of restraining Kim’s nuclear ambitions. In an effort to promote diplomatic contacts between the two countries, the Energy Department has channeled money to U.S. nonprofit agencies and universities, including a $1 million grant to the Atlantic Council to cover travel costs for informal talks between U.S. and North Korean diplomats.

U.S. military officials routinely traveled to North Korea’s demilitarized zone between 1996 and 2005 to give cash to North Korean army officers for the recovery of the remains of 229 of the more than 7,000 U.S. troops missing in North Korea since the Korean War. “There was a painstaking transfer process: cold, hard cash, counted carefully, turned over carefully,” said Larry Greer, spokesman for the Pentagon’s Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office.

Greer insisted that the payments, which covered labor, material and other expenses, were in line with recovery operations in other parts of the world. But he and other officials said North Korea frequently tried to inflate the costs and once requested that the U.S. military build a baby-clothing factory. The United States demurred, he said.

The Bush administration dramatically scaled back U.S. assistance to North Korea in 2002, but it continued to finance the effort to recover remains of Korean War veterans until 2005, when the U.S. military said it could no longer ensure the safety of U.S. recovery teams. Between 2002 and 2005, the United States flew a seven-member North Korean team, at a cost of $25,000 a year, to Bangkok for discussions about future recovery missions, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“It’s pretty close to a ransom of remains,” said James A. Kelly, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, adding he had little confidence that Washington could account for how the money was spent. “I personally didn’t like it, but I didn’t feel it was enough to get into a big squabble with the veterans organizations that felt strongly about it.”

Mark D. Wallace, the U.S. representative to the United Nations for administration and reform, lambasted the U.N. Development Program earlier this year for engaging in similar practices. For instance, he faulted the UNDP for flying a North Korean official in business class to New York at a cost of $12,000 to attend a meeting of the U.N. agency’s board of directors.

His complaints triggered a preliminary U.N. audit this month that confirmed that the UNDP had failed to abide by its rules by hiring workers handpicked by the North Korean government and paying them in foreign currency.

The UNDP operated for years “in blatant violation of U.N. rules [and] served as a steady and large source of hard currency” for the North Korean government, Wallace said. The UNDP’s efforts, he added, have been “systematically perverted for the benefit of the Kim Jong Il regime, rather than the people of North Korea.”

The controversy led the UNDP to suspend its North Korean operations in March after the government refused to allow it to independently hire staff members. The World Food Program and the U.N. Children’s Fund — which also pay government-supplied workers in foreign currency — remain active in North Korea.

Wallace has expanded his inquiry, alleging in congressional briefings that North Korea diverted nearly $3 million in UNDP cash to purchase real estate in France, Britain and Canada. He also contended that the UNDP received tens of thousands of dollars in counterfeit U.S. currency and imported sensitive “dual use” equipment into North Korea that could be used for a weapons program. The United States claims to possess internal UNDP documents to back up the claims but has refused to turn them over.

UNDP spokesman David Morrison said that the allegations “don’t seem to add up” and that the United States has not substantiated its assertions. He said the agency can account for the $2 million to $3 million it spends each year on its North Korea programs. UNDP officials said the dual-use equipment — which included Global Positioning System devices and a portable Tristan 5 spectrometer available on eBay for $5,100 — was part of a weather forecasting system for flood- and drought-prone regions.

“We have been subject to all manner of wild allegations about wide-scale funding diversion,” Morrison said.

U.S. officials said there is no link between criticism of the UNDP and U.S. efforts to restrain North Korean nuclear ambitions. “If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think that way, but there is really no connection,” said a senior U.S. official who tracks the issue.

Share

U.S. Alleges North Korea Is Misusing Aid for Poor

Saturday, June 9th, 2007

Washington Post
Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch
6/9/2007

Probe Says U.N. Money Was Spent on Property Overseas

About $3 million in United Nations money intended to help impoverished North Koreans was diverted by the Pyongyang government toward the purchase of property in France, the United Kingdom and Canada, according to a confidential State Department account of witness reports and internal business records. Millions more, the department reported, went to a North Korean institution linked to a bank alleged to handle arms deals.

The U.N. Development Program (UNDP) in North Korea spent about $3 million a year over the past decade to promote the country’s economic growth, foreign trade and investment. It halted operations in March after the United States alleged that the agency engaged in improper hiring and financial practices. A preliminary U.N. audit, released last week, confirmed that it violated its own guidelines by hiring local workers who were selected by the North Korean government and paying them in foreign currency.

A separate State Department investigation suggests that some of the agency’s money enriched the North Korean government. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, presented UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervis with new allegations regarding the North Korea programs Wednesday, a UNDP spokesman confirmed.

“At first glance, the allegations do not correspond with our own records, which we have scrutinized extremely closely in the past six months,” spokesman David Morrison said.

The U.S. probe, headed by Mark Wallace, a deputy ambassador, also found that the UNDP procured for North Korea equipment that could be used in a weapons program. Such “dual use” equipment included global-positioning system equipment, computers and computer accessories, and a device known as a mass spectrometer, used to determine the isotopic composition of elements.

Morrison said the UNDP purchased the computers, GPS equipment and spectrometer to enable the forecasting of weather patterns in flood- and drought-prone areas of the country. He noted that the 10 GPS devices cost $65,000 and the mass spectrometer cost $6,000.

“UNDP takes these allegations very seriously and has asked the U.S. Mission to provide all available documentation to substantiate the allegations and to facilitate UNDP’s own immediate review of them,” Morrison said.

Ric Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said the information presented to Dervis “indicates an apparent misuse and diversion of UNDP funds, business dealings with certain suspect entities affiliated with [North Korea], UNDP’s procurement of potential dual-use equipment and information related to the further use of counterfeit U.S. currency in” North Korea. He said Dervis indicated that he is “committed to investigating the matter” and providing answers.

The State Department has not made public any documents to back up its interpretation, and Khalilzad has declined to release details of the department’s investigation. Some congressional staff members have received confidential briefings on the findings.

The revelations come at a sensitive moment, as the Bush administration has been working closely with other countries, particularly Russia, to arrange a transfer of $24 million in tainted North Korean money to facilitate an agreement to shut down North Korea’s nuclear reactor.

The U.S. probe discovered that the UNDP purchased for the North Korean government 29 books for an arms control and disarmament project, including one titled “The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation.” Morrison said the books were purchased in December and delivered last month. “In hindsight, better judgment could have been used in the selection and delivery of these books,” he said.

The State Department and the UNDP are in sharp dispute over some of the figures in the transactions. Such quarrels have been frequent between State and the UNDP, with tempers subsiding when documentation emerges to challenge the rhetoric.

According to the State Department, the UNDP transferred more than $7 million between 2001 and 2005 to a North Korean government entity, the National Coordination Committee for UNDP. Morrison said the figure is much lower — a few hundred thousand.

During 2001 and 2002, the UNDP also transferred more than $8 million of other agencies’ funds to the North Korean government, the State Department said. Pyongyang then transferred at least $2.8 million of the UNDP funds to North Korean diplomatic missions in Europe and New York to “cover buildings and houses,” including purchasing buildings in France, the United Kingdom and Canada, the probe found.

The UNDP said the national government received $2.2 million. The agency has no means to determine how North Korea financed its purchase of expensive houses, Morrison said, but he said the UNDP has verified that its money was used to fund its programs.

The State Department also alleged that the UNDP paid nearly $2.7 million for “goods and equipment” to a North Korean financial institution that is linked to Tanchon Commercial Bank (also known as Changgwang Credit Bank). President Bush designated that institution in 2005 as the main North Korean financial agent for sales of ballistic missiles and parts used in the assembly of weapons and missiles.

A UNDP official said the State Department has cited to the agency two financial institutions linked to Tanchon — Zang Lok and the International Financial and Trade Company. The U.N. audit found one payment, for $22,000, sent via Zang Lok in 2004 and none for International Finance.

Share

Statement of UNDP on DPRK activity audit

Wednesday, June 6th, 2007

UNDP welcomes the preliminary report (DPRK-prelimauditreport-20070601.pdf) of UN Board of Auditors (UNBOA) on the operations of UNDP and other UN agencies in DPRK.  UNDP has cooperated fully with the audit process and will continue to do so. 

UNDP operated in DPRK at the express wish of its Executive Board.  Member states encouraged UNDP to assist the country to engage progressively with the norms and standards of the global community. 

The operating environment was very difficult.  In recent years UNDP tightened control mechanisms and conducted frequent audits (1999, 2001 and 2004).  These audits did not lead to any suggestion that UNDP funding was being diverted to purposes other than those for which it was intended. 

UNDP is encouraged that the UNBOA preliminary report confirms:

– That UNDP operated a relatively modest programme in DPRK ($2-3 million per year – far less than “$100s of millions” alleged in press reports)
– That UNDP international staff could – and did – regularly visit project sites to verify how UNDP funding was being used

The preliminary report also highlights specific aspects of the difficult operating environment in DPRK, including staffing and foreign currency arrangements not in line with worldwide practice.  UNDP notes that:

– The Executive Board knew of UNDP’s staffing practices in DPRK, which date back 27 years
– Similar staffing and foreign currency practices were followed by all UN agencies, international NGOs and foreign diplomatic missions in DPRK, including past and current members of UNDP’s Executive Board
– UNDP was not able to follow worldwide practice, but no UNDP regulations or rules were broken
– Following requests by some Board members, UNDP notified DPRK that it was changing its staffing and currency practices.  The proposed changes were formally endorsed by the Executive Board in January 2007
– UNDP suspended operations in the country on 2 March 2007 when DPRK failed to meet the operational changes endorsed and mandated by the Board.
– UNDP took the lead in asking the DPRK government to conform to international practice before the Board’s decision  

The report highlights areas in which UNDP rules or procedures could be strengthened.  UNDP is committed to addressing these areas.

UNDP will be transmitting a formal management response to the ACABQ shortly.  UNDP would welcome a continuation of the audit process, including a visit by the UNBOA to DPRK.  UNDP looks forward to the final audit report.

Share

How To Beat an Audit

Monday, June 4th, 2007

Wall Street Journal
6/4/2007

North Korea will not extend “cooperation” to any U.N. review.

The case of U.N. hard currency for Kim Jong Il took its latest turn Friday with the release of the much-awaited audit on United Nations operations in North Korea. The investigation confirms and elaborates on irregularities in United Nations Development Program’s activities in North Korea, first reported on these pages in January. It fails, however, to examine the central question of this scandal: Whether U.S. cash in North Korea was diverted from its intended recipients and instead used to prop up Kim’s totalitarian regime?

Let us stipulate that any investigation having to do with North Korea is bound to have its share of, shall we say, frustrations. Just ask the U.S. State Department, which, nearly two months after the first nuclear-disarmament deadline, still can’t get Pyongyang to live up to the initial round of its commitments no matter how many times it sweetens the deal.

The first thing to know about the U.N. probe is that it was an internal affair–conducted by the organization’s own Board of Auditors, a monitoring group that in U.N. doublespeak is said to conduct “external” inquiries. The second salient point is that it was conducted entirely in New York City. The longest journey the auditors undertook was to cross First Avenue from the U.N. Secretariat to the offices of the UNDP. To their credit, they tried to go to North Korea but were rebuffed.

In refusing to let the auditors into North Korea, Kim Jong Il displayed his disrespect for Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. The Board of Auditors had asked Mr. Ban’s office to intercede on its behalf with help on travel arrangements. “In an email dated 11 April 2007,” the audit report reads, “the Board was informed that on 20 March 2007, the Deputy Permanent Representative of DPRK [North Korea] advised [Mr. Ban’s chief of staff] that his government was not going to extend any cooperation to UNDP’s audit.”

Even given the limited scope of their investigations, however, the auditors were able to confirm the massive irregularities in the UNDP’s operations in North Korea. The auditors also found violations at three other agencies–Unicef, the U.N. Population Fund and the U.N. Office for Project Services. The infractions covered three areas:

Staffing: In violation of U.N. rules, local staffers were hand-picked by the North Korean government and allowed to work in “general service” jobs that, for example, allowed them access to the UNDP checkbook and other sensitive documents. Salaries were paid in euros directly to the government, and the auditors could not confirm whether the staffers actually received their pay.

Foreign-currency transactions: Also in violation of regulations, U.N. agencies in North Korea made large-scale disbursements in foreign currency, including payments for salaries, allowances and rent. The auditors could not verify controls over the disbursements. UNDP, Unicef and the U.N. Population Fund spent a total of $72.5 million on programs between 2002 and 2006, though the auditors caution that “the information supplied was not verified and no source documents were examined.”

Program oversight: Visits to U.N. projects, while permitted, were controlled by the North Korean government. Authorization took a week, and government officials accompanied the U.N. inspectors. Most revealing of all, it’s unclear whether the inspectors were international officials or the North Korean government officials on loan to the U.N. organizations whose first loyalty, it’s safe to say, would have been to Pyongyang.

UNDP says it provided evidence to the auditors of 38 field visits during 2002-2006. According to the auditors’ report, UNDP had a total of 172 projects over that five-year period. Do the arithmetic and it seems that only one in five UNDP projects was visited annually. Some “oversight”–especially if the inspectors were government factotums.

The auditors say that this is a “preliminary review.” That’s an understatement. Most glaringly, they failed to investigate the broader role UNDP is said to have had as a kind of money manager for other U.N. programs and, possibly, for countries sending aid to the North. UNDP is trumpeting the auditors’ finding that it spent only an average of $2.6 million a year during 2002-2006. But if it was making disbursements on behalf of other entities, the actual sums under its control–which presumably were subject to the same shoddy financial controls criticized by the auditors–could be far higher.

The UNDP suspended operations in North Korea in March when Pyongyang refused to abide by conditions laid down by the UNDP executive board after the irregularities came to light (but years after the UNDP itself knew but ignored them). To the extent that it sheds light on the corruption, the just-released audit is a useful exercise. But there’s a long way to go before we get to the bottom of the Cash for Kim scandal.

Share

Audit report on UNDP to be presented to U.N. general meeting

Friday, May 11th, 2007

Yonhap
5/11/2007

An external audit report on United Nations activities in North Korea will be presented to a general meeting of the United Nations next week, a Washington-based radio station reported Friday.

Citing an informed source, Radio Free Asia said that an audit report is being made of the relevant documents and information without the inspectors visiting the communist country. The audit of all U.N. operations in North Korea began in March amid U.S. allegations that U.N. aid money was being diverted to the North’s regime.

The U.N. Development Program (UNDP) said it has completed the process of wrapping up all of its operations in North Korea, and its two remaining staff members were supposed to leave Pyongyang last week.

The agency suspended operations on March 1 because North Korea failed to meet conditions set by its executive board following suspicions that the aid money might be diverted for illicit purposes, including the development of nuclear weapons. It withdrew seven of its nine international staff in mid-March.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ordered an external audit of all U.N. operations in North Korea that began on March 12.

The UNDP’s office equipment and materials are currently being safeguarded by the World Food Programme in Pyongyang and will be available to the auditors, officials from the international body said.

Share

North Korea Time

Thursday, May 3rd, 2007

Wall Street Journal Editorial
5/3/2007
Page A16

It’s been two and a half weeks since the 60-day deadline passed on April 14 for North Korea to comply with the first part of the nuclear accord reached in February. That includes shutting down the Yongbyong nuclear reactor, letting in U.N. inspectors and providing a list of all nuclear programs. But so far no word from Pyongyang, and nothing from Beijing or Washington either. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both recently claimed their “patience” is not “endless,” contrary to all available evidence.

Meanwhile, another North Korean deadline has been allowed to lapse. On January 19, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon ordered an “external inquiry” into all U.N. programs in North Korea, including the United Nations Development Fund, Unicef, the World Food Program and the U.N. Population Fund. Mr. Ban’s announcement followed our report on irregularities in UNDP programs in North Korea and U.S. concerns that tens of millions of dollars in hard currency were funneled to dictator Kim Jong Il.

Mr. Ban imposed a 90-day deadline for the audit, but it appears to be lost somewhere in the U.N. bureaucracy. The auditors spent two weeks in March at UNDP headquarters in New York interviewing staff and looking at the books, but they have yet to set foot in North Korea, much less file a report. Oh — and the “independent” and “external” audit Mr. Ban ordered is being conducted by the U.N.’s own Board of Auditors, consisting of a team from South Africa, France and the Philippines.

We had a challenge gathering even these details. The Board of Auditors refuses to talk to the press. The UNDP understandably feels it lacks standing to comment on an investigation of itself. And Mr. Ban’s press office can’t seem to get the facts straight, first telling us the auditors were in Korea and then informing us they weren’t. You’d think someone at the U.N. would show more interest in explaining one of the boss’s priorities to the public.

It will be interesting to see how Kim Jong Il responds if the auditors get around to asking for visas. The dictator recently told the last two UNDP officials left in Pyongyang to get out. The UNDP suspended operations there in March, after our reports and after the Kim government refused to let aid officials visit the projects they fund.

Mr. Ban is staying mum on the missed U.N. deadline. But on the evidence so far, Kim can be forgiven if he concludes that the world isn’t serious about enforcing any of its deadlines concerning North Korea.

Share

U.N. Officials Knew Earlier of N. Korea Fake Currency

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007

New York Sun
Benny Avni
4/3/2007

As federal investigators examine how the leading U.N. agency in North Korea illegally kept 35 counterfeit American $100 bills in its possession for 12 years, documents indicate that more officials were aware of the existence of the fake currency — and earlier — than the agency has reported.

Spokesmen for the United Nations Development Program have said top officials at the agency’s New York headquarters learned in February that their safe in Pyongyang contained the counterfeit bills and immediately reported it to American authorities. But several documents shown recently to The New York Sun indicate that higher-ups knew much earlier that the safe held counterfeit money.

The documents are part of a worldwide reporting system that allows the agency to keep track of the contents of its office safes.

(more…)

Share

Mobilizing Transnational Korean Linkages for Economic Development on China’s Frontier

Saturday, March 31st, 2007

Japan Focus
Outi Luova
1/1/2006

China’s coastal regions have received impressive financial and organizational resources through overseas Chinese networks and international capital generally. China’s land borders are also linked to transnational communities, thanks to the networks of ethnic minorities who live there. This article introduces the mobilization of the Korean minority’s transnational ethnicities in the service of local economic development. China’s well-established structure for the utilization of overseas Chinese resources serves as a frame of reference. The analysis focuses on foreign investment, donations, and remittances—resources that are widely regarded as the most important development input provided by the overseas Chinese. The regional focus is on Yanbian, a Korean autonomous prefecture in Jilin Province in Northeast China, which has enjoyed a measure of success in attracting Korean investment in step with burgeoning China-South Korea economic and political ties. But it has also faced significant challenges.

The Yanbian Koreans and the Transnational Korean Community in Northeast Asia

The current Korean population in China is of rather recent origin. A wave of migration from the Korean Peninsula began in the 17th century. However, most of the migrants arrived during the tumultuous decades between the middle of the 19th century and the end of the Second World War. Northeast China was first a refuge for poor peasants and later a base for Korean nationalists, who fought against the Japanese colonial rulers in the period 1910–45. After Japan annexed Northeast China in 1931, hundreds of thousands of Koreans migrated to the new Japanese-dominated state of Manzhouguo, including many forcibly sent to work in factories and mines. However, the vast majority of migrants from Korea came allured by the promise of land.

When Japan was defeated in 1945, there were 1.7 million Koreans in Northeast China. When the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, some 600,000 Koreans returned to the Korean Peninsula, while 1.1 million remained in China. China’s ethnic Korean minority presently totals roughly two million people. Most live in Northeast China, with a dense Korean population in Yanbian on the North Korean border. The number of ethnic Koreans in Yanbian is about 200,000, 38 percent of the prefecture’s population. An estimated 80 percent of the Yanbian Koreans have their roots in contemporary North Korea, and 20 percent have their roots in South Korea.

While the current Korean-Chinese population mainly originated in these recent waves of migration, both Chinese and Korean kingdoms earlier ruled and fought over the area that is now Yanbian. The historical dispute over the area continues even today among historians and politicians: Both South Korea and China claim historical antecedence with respect to the Kingdoms of Gaoguli (Chinese)/Goguryeo (Korean) and Bohai (Chinese)/Balhae (Korean), which ruled over the area from 37 BCE to 926 CE. Another historical dispute concerns the region of Jiandao (Chinese)/Gando (Korean), which is roughly congruent with contemporary Yanbian. Some Korean nationalists continue to demand that Jiandao, which they regard as a part of Korea, be restored to Korea. [1]

Yanbian has two pools of Korean resources abroad: Koreans, and Korean-Chinese who possess Chinese citizenship. The Koreans include, from a Chinese point of view, Koreans living on the Korean Peninsula and the some 3.7 million people of Korean origins residing throughout the world, mainly in Japan, the United States, and the former Soviet Union. There are three overlapping categories of overseas Koreans who maintain relations with Yanbian: The first group comprises Koreans (including people of Korean origins) with relatives and acquaintances presently living in Yanbian. A second group is comprised of Koreans whose life history is linked to Yanbian; these Koreans, or their parents, were born or lived part of their lives in Northeast China. Many who left China in 1945 have ties to the region where they, or their parents, lived; however, compared with the overseas Chinese, their linkages are more tenuous, since their ancestral homeland is on the Korean Peninsula, and Yanbian can be seen to have constituted only a temporary home. Finally, the third and broadest category of overseas Koreans who maintain ties to Yanbian consists of all overseas Koreans whose sympathy and interest in Yanbian is rooted in blood ties, ethnicity, and culture. Overall, Overseas Koreans remain critical to Yanbian attempts to mobilize transnational Korean resources.

As for overseas Korean-Chinese, there are currently over 150,000 living in various parts of the world. Besides Yanbian, Korean-Chinese from other parts of Northeastern China have migrated to South Korea. Han Chinese migrant workers in South Korea in 2001 included more professionals than did Korean-Chinese (638 versus 268) but fewer trainees (8,629 vs 13,243) and undocumented migrants (38,000 vs 57,000). [2] An estimated 50,000 Yanbian Koreans live in South Korea, including professionals, workers, trainees, students, and wives of South Korean men.

The Opening Up of Yanbian

Direct trade between China’s coastal provinces and South Korea flourished starting in the late 1980s, despite the lack of official relations between the two countries. Indirect trade began around the time of the Asian Games, which took place in Seoul in 1986; China’s participation in the games signalled a changed attitude towards South Korea. South Korean investments were soon directed toward southern China, the region then most open to foreign investment. Following the Seoul Olympics in 1988, direct trade between the two countries began, and South Korea investments moved northward, mainly to Shandong and Liaoning provinces, which are closest to South Korea.

Jilin’s border and barter trade with North Korea were restored in 1982, having been frozen since 1970 in the aftermath of the radical period of the Cultural Revolution. The first direct South Korean investment in Northeast China was made in Heilongjiang as recently as 1989 and in Jilin in 1990, and direct trade with South Korea was restricted to these provinces until 1990. Hence, despite the presence of an ethnic Korean population, Yanbian did not receive much South Korean investment in the 1980s. A partial explanation lies in particular features of the economy and history of China’s northeast. Conservative party officials had sought to limit foreign economic penetration there, in part to protect inefficient state-run industries. Economic cooperation was also restricted for political reasons. In particular, Japanese and South Korean investments evoked concern; Japanese investments revived memories of colonial domination of an earlier area, and South Korean investments were a sore point for China’s ally North Korea. Thus, while allowing trade to expand elsewhere in China, the central government prevented the northeastern provinces from drawing closer to South Korea. For Yanbian, with its close political and ethnic relationship with North Korea, it became particularly important to keep its distance from South Korea. Beijing used Yanbian as a political card to assure North Korea of China’s support.

In the latter part of the 1980s, the Yanbian elite was divided into two camps, one opposing contacts with South Korea and the other favouring opening up to South Korea and other capitalist countries. The pro-South Korea camp lobbied the central government to grant Northeast China preferential trade rights. Both groups included Han Chinese as well as Korean-Chinese. Thus, not only national-level policies but also divisions among local factions hampered the opening up of Yanbian.

Although small-scale trade associated with tourism was lively by the late 1980s, official trade contacts between Yanbian and South Korea were few before 1991. Yanbian Koreans first developed transnational bonds with North Koreans and Korean-Soviets. Yanbian Koreans frequently visited relatives in North Korea and the USSR and created close ties with kin and friends there. The local authorities supported these visits partly because of the profitable small-scale trade conducted during the visits. In particular, the shuttle trade with North Korea was profitable: In the early 1990s, the annual value of this unofficial trade was estimated to exceed RMB 100 million.

In 1991, Yanbian emerged as a center of international cooperation as the UNDP-backed Tumen River development program was inaugurated. The bold initial plan of this program was to turn the Sino-Russian-North Korean border area around the mouth of the Tumen River into a new international commercial hub with intercourse extending to South Korea, Mongolia and Japan. After the establishment of China-South Korean official relations in 1992, Yanbian was fully integrated into a regional, transnational Korean ethnic community, and state-supported transnational activities expanded especially to South Korea.

Organizing Activities for the Promotion of Ties

Since the mid-1980s, Yanbian’s contacts with South Korea and other countries have gradually expanded through unofficial channels drawing on ethnic and family ties. The first business contacts were created by associations, individual scholars, artists, and athletes. The first to “break the isolation” was a Yanbian University professor who visited West Germany and Sweden in 1982. Unofficial cultural exchange with South Korea began in 1989, when a famous Yanbian Korean poet visited several South Korean universities and a song and dance troupe from Yanbian performed in South Korea. In the mid-1980s, the Party-affiliated Yanbian Overseas Union hosted members of the Sino-Canadian Association for Economic and Cultural Exchange of the Korean People and the Friendship Association of Korean People in China and the United States. In 1988, the Yanbian Overseas Union paid a return visit to Canada and the United States, paving the way for economic cooperation. Members of this same association had also visited South Korea even before the establishment of Sino-South Korean diplomatic relations. In 1990, the Yanbian Department of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation set up a Chamber of International Commerce to build unofficial ties with South Korea.

Once official Sino-South Korean relations were established in 1992, the local government launched a full-fledged mobilization of Korean linkages. It openly encouraged Yanbian Koreans to visit South Korea and contact Koreans living abroad. In addition to associations, businessmen, and officials, ordinary people were also encouraged to link up with South Koreans and visit the country. Yet, the foreign trade administration of Yanbian was ill-prepared for large-scale international economic cooperation. In this situation, unofficial channels inevitably took the lead.

Different types of associations helped widen business contacts and act as middlemen. The Yanbian Overseas Union played a decisive role in attracting five foreign investments, and the Association of International Public Relations drew two factories to the area. Ethnic Korean members of these two associations also supported foreign trade officials when business negotiations encountered difficulties. For example, when negotiations between officials and investors deadlocked, the associations sometimes persuaded investors to start businesses in Yanbian. In the 1990s, the role of ethnic Korean middlemen became crucial for the additional reason that the state-owned companies were staffed mainly by Han Chinese, who lacked appropriate cultural and social capital.

The role of the above associations and other ethnic Korean middlemen in business promotion subsequently diminished. Following the early 1990s, when the foreign trade administration struggled in the face of insufficient resources, contacts, and experience, the administration expanded and gained strength. The administration and local companies established wide and stable international contacts, as well as additional resources to facilitate international cooperation. Now, the associations were mobilized in campaigns that focused on student exchange, labour export, and charity work, to mention a few.

In order to reinforce the emerging cooperation, leaders of the prefecture as well as lower-level units invited South Korean businessmen to discuss cooperation and celebrate the Spring Festival, the New Year, and China’s National Day in Yanbian. South Korean foreign students, politicians and artists were also invited to participate. At these events, important South Korean partners were granted honorary citizenships and other honours. Local governments were also active in establishing ties with cities, prefectures and counties elsewhere. By 1999, the Yanbian capital Yanji had created friendly relations with 11 cities and districts in five countries. Of these locations, five were in South Korea. In addition, Yanji had friendship cities in Australia and Russia.

One form of official business promotion activity was the arrangement of international Korean cultural events. Some of these events had a purely commercial character, while others sought to bring the Korean-Chinese community to the knowledge of Koreans abroad and portray them as potentially valuable partners. Important occasions included international trade fairs and the anniversaries of the autonomous prefecture, which were celebrated grandiosely every fifth year. These celebrations were organized by the prefectural government. The First Korean Cultural Festival, which Yanbian Prefecture organized in August 1992 to celebrate the prefecture’s 40th anniversary, provides a good example of these cultural-trade events. The organizers of the First Korean Cultural Festival invited ethnic Korean guests from 10 countries, among them over 500 businessmen with a Korean background. During the festival, representatives of Yanbian companies negotiated with the business guests and agreed on participation in over 40 projects.

In addition to holding festivals with an ethnic Korean character, Yanbian also tried to attract overseas Koreans’ attention by building up a permanent exhibition on Korean-Chinese folk customs, and by reconstructing several traditional villages. Cultural activities of this kind echoed the practices of China’s minority policy. China has emphasized the cultivation of minorities’ folk customs, such as traditional festivals, the performing arts and clothing, often adapted to Chinese sensibilities. Koreans in China have managed to maintain their folklore rather well, and they enjoy a high level of education, mainly in the fields of literature, history and the performing arts. This background has provided a solid basis for the arrangement of ethnic cultural events and exhibitions.

The above attempts to elevate the Koreanness of Yanbian can be interpreted as a way to strengthen “diffuse solidarity” in the transnational community. This type of solidarity creates affinity within larger entities such as territorial and symbolic communities, in which participants largely lack face-to-face contact. [3] Yanbian tried to deepen the interest and affection of foreign Koreans toward Yanbian by highlighting its cultural Koreanness. At the same time, it aimed to control politically sensitive claims on commonality. For example, the officials suppressed all statements of Yanbian being a part of Korea historically or in terms of nationhood.

Building Ties

The first joint venture in Yanbian was established in 1986 between an American subsidiary of a South Korean company and the prefecture of Yanbian. Before the establishment of Sino-South Korean official relations, most foreign investments came from Korean-Americans or American affiliates of South Korean companies. By the end of 1992, a total of 131 of the 212 wholly or partly foreign-owned companies in Yanbian, sanzi qiye, were run by ethnic Korean capital. The greatest part, consisting of 72 companies, had absorbed South Korean capital, and 10 had taken up North Korean capital. In all, 49 companies were partly or wholly financed by ethnic Koreans from other countries such as the United States, Japan and Canada. At least in these 49 cases, it could be reasonable to argue that ethnic and family ties had played an important role in the investment decision. In 1996, an official in the foreign trade administration informed me, foreign investors from countries other than South and North Korea were mainly ethnic Koreans.

The year 1996 can be seen as a turning point in Yanbian’s foreign economic cooperation. The number of enterprises receiving South Korean investments rose to 393, including large-scale investments. Between 1996 and 1997 the total volume of implemented foreign investment more than doubled. The financial crisis which hit the South Korean economy in the latter years did, however, precipitate a nosedive in South Korean foreign direct investments. South Korea recovered quickly from the crisis, but the number and value of the absorbed FDI would not quickly return to 1996 and 1997 levels. Still, by 2002, total South Korean direct investment projects had risen to 515, which was 74 per cent of all FDI in Yanbian. Their average value (US$790,000) was rather small compared with the average value of FDI from Hong Kong (US$2.7 million), Taiwan (US$1.02 million) and Japan (US$1.01 million). A report compiled by a leading cadre of the Tumen Programme Office, however, revealed disappointment with the type of investments Yanbian had received. Although the number of investments was relatively high compared with other parts of Jilin Province, and South Korean investment accounted for more than two thirds of international investment in Yanbian by 2002,the level of technology, scale, efficiency and compatibility was said to be low. Moreover, the companies experienced huge losses and failed to invigorate the local economy. [4]

table.jpg

Compared with South Korean investment in other parts of China, interest in Yanbian was limited. Shanghai, Tianjin and the coastal provinces Shandong, Liaoning, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang ranked highest in South Korean investment. Investment decisions were guided principally by profitability, not by emotions. By comparison to leading coastal provinces, Yanbian’s infrastructure was meagre, hence South Korean interest in investment low. In addition, South Korean companies could readily recruit Korean-speaking workers from Northeast China to their factories situated in the coastal regions.

The amount of FDI in Yanbian rose gradually in the early 1990s, but foreign trade did not. Yanbian’s foreign trade declined between 1993 and 1996. In the early 1990s Yanbian’s main trade partner was North Korea, which faced mounting economic difficulties leading to a sharp drop in trade in 1993. The other reason for the crash was the establishment of Sino-South Korean official relations. North Korea responded by cutting back on trade. The low quality and narrow selection of Yanbian’s main export products in the early 1990s—cereals, coal, tobacco, sugar—also hindered development of trade with the emerging new trade partners, Japan and South Korea. Yanbian’s foreign trade plummeted from a peak value of US$467 million in 1993 to US$155 million in 1995.

Yanbian responded by launching, in cooperation with South Korean investors, new export products: textiles, yarn, timber, and wooden products. One third of the South Korean-invested companies were engaged in textile manufacturing. Yanbian also imported timber from Russia and North Korea in order to manufacture wooden products for South Korean markets.

In 2003, the value of Yanbian’s trade with North Korea was nearly equal to its trade with South Korea: US$117 million versus US$116 million. Yet two years later, trade with North Korea had expanded to double the value of trade with South Korea. The economic reforms initiated in North Korea in 2002 were presumably one of the main reasons for this increase. In addition, the visit by China’s leader Jiang Zemin to North Korea the same year probably boosted trade relations. However, compared with other regions in China, Yanbian’s trade with neighbouring countries remains small. By comparison, the border city of Dandong in Liaoning Province handles over two-thirds of China’s trade with North Korea.

In reality, Yanbian’s trade with North and South Korea and Russia, like its trade across other land borders, has been much more extensive than official numbers show. Many of the companies involved in foreign trade with North Korea were not registered. Thus, their trade remains outside of the statistics. Similarly, the vibrant shuttle trade with the bordering countries, South Korea included, is not visible in the statistics.

Trade and investment flows between China and the two Koreas have been most intensive in China’s Bohai region, which stretches from Liaoning to Shandong; Yanbian, due to its remote location and less developed infrastructure, has remained a backwater by comparison. Nevertheless, although the Korean investments in Yanbian are relatively few, and registered trade with the two Koreas low, the role of overseas Korean ties in the development of the Yanbian economy has been crucial. China’s central government has provided Yanbian with several preferential polices [5], but it has provided only limited funds to create a solid economic foundation. Supported by preferential policies, Yanbian’s development has largely been financed by South Korea. Today, as Yanbian’s economic structure has become consolidated, domestic companies are showing increasing interest in Yanbian, further supported by the state-sponsored campaign to rejuvenate the economy of Northeast China. This new development could reinforce Yanbian’s position in the Northeast Asian circle of ethnic Korean capital flows.

The patterns of ethnic Korean investments in Yanbian show similarities with overseas Chinese investments in China’s coastal regions. The investments have been small and have not involved high technology. Rather, they have concentrated in the service sector. Cooperation with South Korean companies has provided an important learning process for inexperienced Yanbian Korean companies, helping them to adapt to international cooperation. In southern China, overseas Chinese investments have paved the way for other foreign investors; in Yanbian, overseas Korean investments have created conditions which facilitate the flow of both foreign and domestic Chinese investments into the area. In this way, the foreign investments have in fact supported Yanbian’s integration into China’s domestic economy.

Compared with overseas Chinese community investments in China, the Korean transnational community has been less inclined to invest in South Korea. To a great extent this is the product of South Korea’s restrictive policy on foreign direct investments. South Korea made the first attempts to mobilize its Korean diaspora for economic purposes only in 1997, when the Overseas Koreans Foundation was established. Since 2002, the Foundation has convened annual “World Korean Business Conventions,” which aim at building a global Korean business network in support of the South Korean economy. As South Korea has liberalized foreign investment rules, ethnic Korean investment has started to increase. Yanbian has been ahead of South Korea itself in its organized attempts to mobilize the transnational ethnic Korean community.

Attracting donations and remittances has been a central part of building ties between China and overseas Chinese. By comparison with overseas Chinese donations in Guangdong, overseas Korean donations in Yanbian and elsewhere have been few.

There have, however, been donations directed to schools, institutes and universities, as is the case with Chinese contributions to their hometowns in Guangdong. Some foreign Koreans who lived in Yanbian in their childhood have donated to their alma maters. Donations have included technical equipment, books, periodicals and grants. During fieldwork in Yanbian in 2004, I met with a South Korean businessman who had recently made a donation to a technical institute in Yanbian. Although he was investing in other parts of China, he had chosen Yanbian for his donation because his father and mother were born there.

During the 1990s, Yanbian received institutional donations worth US$10 million. High taxes imposed on donations, as well as corruption, were mentioned as reasons for limiting donations. Remittances to relatives tended to flow out from Yanbian rather than in, as local Koreans helped their relatives in North Korea; indeed, my local contacts emphasized that the main flow of economic support was from Yanbian to North Korea, not from South Korea to Yanbian. Rather than sending money, many South Korean relatives preferred to give generous gifts when they met with their Yanbian relatives. By contrast, significant flows of Korean capital were directed from Yanbian to North Korea. Yanbian Koreans supported relatives and friends in North Korea both financially and by providing clothes and food. Yanbian also served as a channel for South Korean remittances to North Korea. Both South Koreans and North Koreans who lived outside their home country used Yanbian Korean brokers to deliver money to their relatives in North Korea.

Finally, the remittances sent by Yanbian Korean labour migrants from abroad to Yanbian were significant. In 2003, migrant remittances are said to have reached US$650 million. This sum was double the local budget, and fifteen times higher than the value of realized foreign investments in 2003.

Korean Ethnic and Family Ties in the Service of Economic Development

Without a doubt, Korean ethnic ties have given impetus to Korean investors to start businesses in Yanbian. Firstly, ethnic affinity led some investors to invest in Yanbian. Some South Korean researchers of China-South Korean trade have mentioned the Korean population of Yanbian as being advantageous for South Korean investors; for example, the South Korean economist Si Joong Kim assumes that cultural proximity has attracted South Korean small- and medium-sized firms to China’s Korean areas. [6] Yanbian has also attracted Korean interest in its capacity as a link with North Korea. As Yanbian Koreans can easily enter North Korea, information from and about North Korea is readily available there. Local companies can also act as middlemen with North Korean companies. Thus, some investors see Yanbian as a springboard for future investments in North Korea.

The Complexity of Transnational Ethnic Ties as an Economic Resource

Overseas Korean networks have not, however, provided comparable resources to Yanbian as the overseas Chinese networks have provided to Southern China. China’s coastal region possesses a long tradition of entrepreneurship, and the overseas Chinese community is highly business-oriented, factors which have contributed to the rapid economic growth on China’s southern coast. Yanbian, by contrast, was predominantly agrarian, and due to its remote position adjacent to North Korea, its economy has been less developed. The high level of education of the Korean-Chinese has not led directly to economic cooperation with foreign countries, as the highly educated Korean-Chinese have mainly pursued studies in history, literature and the arts. Moreover, they have tended to be oriented toward careers in government, in the performing arts and literature, or in the media. Hence, compared with the overseas Chinese, the Korean transnational community has been less well positioned to invest in Yanbian.

A closer look at certain elements of Koreanness that Yanbian wished to rely on reflects the complexity of ethnic ties as a resource for promoting economic cooperation. Ethnic background or family ties do not automatically generate business. When the Yanbian Koreans won the opportunity to visit South Korea, they were surprised at not receiving a warmer welcome there. Indeed, South Koreans tended to look down on them. For political and cultural reasons, North Koreans were held in even lower esteem in South Korea. As Korean-Chinese were often mistaken for North Koreans when visiting South Korea, due to similar dialect and appearance, they often met rather harsh treatment.

As contacts between Korean-Chinese and South Koreans intensified, the differences in their habits and values also became quite clear. Korean-Chinese and South Koreans had drifted apart during forty years of separation. The resulting differences led to conflicts over values and other misunderstandings between the two groups. According to sociologist Hyun Ok Park, the Korean-Chinese had turned from “long-lost relatives of blood-kin” to a cheap labour force which faced discrimination, arrests, crackdowns and deportations. [7]

Family networks did not provide wide access to business, because the majority of the Yanbian Koreans had their relatives in North Korea. Close ties between the Yanbian Koreans and North Korea constituted a hindrance to trade with South Korea in the mid-1990s. According to one Yanbian Korean contact, those who wished to maintain trade relations with North Korean companies were often unable to seek business partners in South Korea, for fear that the North Korean side would break off the relationship. Although trade with North Korea had become less and less profitable by the mid-1990s, many Yanbian Korean businessmen avoided business contacts with South Korea in order to maintain their partnerships with North Korean companies. Some Yanbian Koreans also feared that cooperation with South Korea would put their relatives in North Korea in a difficult situation.

Loyalty to China

Some Chinese government officials also wanted to avoid the problems which contacts with South Koreans might create. This, especially, seems to have hindered cadres of Korean origin. Due to the strong South Korean connection with Yanbian, and the pan-nationalistic activities aimed at creating a united Great Korea, including Yanbian, Yanbian was classified as one of the four sensitive regions in China where the Central Government fears separatism. [8] The fear is that pan-nationalistic South Koreans might infiltrate Yanbian in the guise of economic cooperation. Some officials, who wished to render their career secure by avoiding all trouble, chose to block cooperation with South Koreans and other foreigners.

The activities of the associations that were pursuing people’s diplomacy with overseas Koreans were closely monitored. One article in the journal of the local Party School stated that strengthening party guidance was essential for people’s diplomacy, and urged close cooperation between associations and the Party. The article even called for Party cells in associations in order to assure that they follow the Party line. [9] In this environment, the prerequisite for an internationally oriented association to be active seemed to be a chairperson who was a trusted Party member.

Similar views were presented in articles prepared by the national-level Ethnic Affairs Commission, Minwei. [10] Korean-Chinese were generally regarded as a patriotic group, having participated in the Civil War on the side of the Communists, and later in the Korean War in the ranks of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The starting point in these articles was that the Korean masses should be trusted; leaders should have faith in the Koreans and trust that their political consciousness is strong enough to resist the influence of foreign infiltrators. The second point was that international economic cooperation is essential for Yanbian, so ties with foreigners should be developed. Still, social stability, national unity and border security remained priorities.

There was also concern for the eventual reactions to strong condemnation of Yanbian Koreans as unpatriotic or unreliable. The labelling of Yanbian as a sensitive area (mingan diqu) would convey a lack of trust to local Koreans. It was feared that this would create opposition and disappointment, which could push the Korean-Chinese to the side of infiltrators. There was a clear need to find an appropriate balance between flexibility and control, in order not to obstruct positive economic transfers from the Korean transnational community to Yanbian.

At the same time as concern for the loyalty of Yanbian Koreans arose, exclusivist tendencies in South Korean society produced a counter-force in favour of China. Many Yanbian Koreans became disillusioned because of the discrimination they encountered in South Korea. This strengthened their bonds with China. In addition, in China, they could anticipate rising living standards and could feel pride in belonging to the Korean-Chinese community. Thus, the question of the loyalty of Yanbian Koreans involved multiple contradictory factors.

The Role of Religion

In addition to political ideas, religious activities spread through transnational ties. Christianity was not only perceived by the Chinese leadership as a threat to the “Chineseness” of the Yanbian Korean culture, but Christian congregations were considered to be a disguise for political infiltrators who aimed to disintegrate the country through peaceful means. South Korean missionaries worked not only among Korean-Chinese but also among North Korean migrants and refugees. While in South Korea, many Korean-Chinese encountered Christianity. Until the 1980s, the role of religion had been limited among Korean-Chinese, while in South Korea, one-third of the population were Christians. One contact assumed that the Korean-Chinese migrants were initially attracted to Christianity when they got support from South Korean believers while working under adverse social and economic conditions: Christian organisations provided practical help, like free medical treatment, as well as social and political support. Christian organisations also won support by backing Korean-Chinese demands that South Korean authorities guarantee humane treatment.

Korean churches worked among Korean-Chinese actively not only in South Korea but also in China. They sent both money and personnel to local churches and ran welfare projects. Some churches had established congregations in Yanbian and other areas of China. Many returning migrants joined a local Christian congregation. By the year 1996, the Christian community in Yanbian had grown to include nearly 10 percent of the ethnic Korean population. In addition to return migrants, these congregations also appealed to locals who looked for support in the midst of deteriorating socio-economic conditions.

In order to counteract foreign political and religious infiltrators, three measures were taken in Yanbian in the late 1990s. Firstly, education emphasizing patriotism, socialism and religious policy was intensified. Secondly, leadership was strengthened. Thirdly, control of foreign religious activities was intensified.

Government-Imposed Limitations to Transnational Activities

Yet, various issues remained salient. A report on the new tasks of nationality work from 2001 stated that unequal and slow economic development worked against the cohesion and “centripetality” of minority nationalities. Furthermore, certain international factors and religious activities posed a latent threat to the ethnic unity and social stability in some areas. Yet, this particular document did not provide any policy proposals beyond the routine phrases of training ethnic minority cadres in the spirit of the “three representatives” (sange daibiao). [11] This dilemma will persist as long as the Sino-Korean border exists.

Overall, at the grassroots level, unorganized transnational activities have been allowed to operate freely, but organized activities have only been approved if under the guidance of the Party. At a higher level of institutionalization, whether controlled by individuals, government units, or companies, transnational activities have been required to proceed only according to a strict code of operation. Hence, central tenets of Yanbian’s approved transnational policies can be summarized into two key concepts, viz: trustworthy relations with the centre, and ethno-politically disciplined organizations.

Conclusion

In the course of the 1980s and early 1990s, Yanbian Koreans were gradually linked to the Korean transnational community. Their relationship to this community has since evolved from a fervent Korea-fever to disillusionment. Bernard Vincent Olivier has drawn interesting parallels between the interaction of Yanbian Koreans and North Koreans in the 1960s and the interaction of Yanbian Koreans and South Koreans in the 1990s. In both cases, close interaction initially generated euphoria but later resulted in strengthening the Chineseness of Yanbian Koreans. [12] This tendency was also evident in the early 21st century. Contrary to the fears of China’s leaders, transnational ethnic relations do not necessarily undermine the loyalty of cross-border ethnic groups. Indeed, deeper contacts with ethnic kin abroad may even strengthen minority groups’ ties to the home country.

Although trade and investment flows between China and the two Koreas have been most intensive in China’s Bohai region, the role of overseas Korean ties in the development of the Yanbian economy has been crucial to the locality. As Yanbian’s economic structure consolidates, its position in the Northeast Asian circle of ethnic Korean capital flows might become more significant.

Drawing on traditions of overseas Chinese work, the Yanbian administration was able to mobilize ethnic Korean resources for prefectural development. The mobilization of the Korean transnational community by Yanbian officials was similar to that in overseas Chinese-connected areas such as coastal Guangdong and Fujian, but on a smaller scale. The administration of transnational relations of the ethnic minorities is, however, politically more sensitive in Yanbian than in coastal China since transnational ethnic relations raise questions about border security and separatism. Nevertheless, transnational ethnic relations have been allowed to expand and deepen in relatively unrestricted ways, compared, for example, with those involving the Uyghurs of Xinjiang. This suggests the possibilities of ethnicity-based cross-border economic activities in China.

The mobilization of transnational linkages has provided China with substantial resources that have contributed to China’s rise. While this has been widely recognized with respect to the Chinese diaspora, far less attention has been paid to linkages with Koreans abroad. Yet China has clearly embarked on major efforts, both at the center and in localities, to draw in overseas resources to support China’s rise.

Editors’ note: This article refers to Chinese persons of Korean descent as Korean-Chinese (Korean-Chinese in Yanbian are frequently termed Yanbian Koreans). Other English-language literature, including the author’s PhD thesis, refers to Korean-Chinese as Chinese-Koreans. Chinese usage is closer to “the Korean nationality” or “the Korean minority nationality.”

Outi Luova is a senior researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies, University of Turku, Finland. Her PhD thesis dealt with the attempts of the Yanbian government to utilize transnational Korean ethnic capital for the economic development of Yanbian. She can be contacted at [email protected]. This article is a revised version of an article that appeared in China Information 2006:1. Many thanks to Mark Selden for comments on earlier drafts of this article.

On Gaoguli/Goguryeo (or Koguryo), see “Competing Nationalisms: The Mobilisation of History and Archaeology in the Korea-China Wars over Koguryo/Gaogouli,” “The Legacy of Long-Gone States: China, Korea and the Koguryo Wars,” and other Japan Focus articles searchable using the keyword “Koguryo.” On border politics and cultural politics, see “Dance or Else: The Politics of Ethnic Culture on China’s Southwest Borders.”

Notes

[1] Ahn, Yonson (2006). “Competing Nationalisms: The Mobilisation of History and Archaeology in the Korea-China Wars over Koguryo/Gaogouli.” Japan Focus, February 9.

[2] Dong-Hoon Seol and John D. Skrentny (2005). “South Korea: Importing Undocumented Workers.” In Cornelius W. et al., eds., Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 489.

[3] Faist, Thomas (2000). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 106, 109.

[4] Sun Xingbiao ( 2001). Guanyu Yanbian duiwai kaifang wenti de sikao. A report by the deputy director of the Tumen Programme Office (no date available). In Zhu Hongqi, ed., Zhongguo dangdai juece wenku. Yanbian Chaoxianzu zizhizhou lingdao ganbu diaocha lunwen ji. Shang juan. Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 274.

[5] These policies include preferential policies for ethnic minority regions: the Tumen River Development, the Development of the West, and the Development of the Old Industrial Basis of the Northeast.

[6] Si Joong Kim (1994). “Korean Direct Investment in China: Perspectives of Korean Investors.” In Sumner J. La Croix, Michael Plummer, and Keun Lee, eds., Emerging Patterns of East Asian Investment in China: From Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 205.

[7] Park, Hyun Ok (1996). “Segyehwa: Globalization and Nationalism in Korea.” In The Journal of the International Institute 4:1. www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol4no1/segyeh.html.

[8] The other sensitive regions are Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet.

[9] Jin Yongwan (1999). Shilun shehui zhuyi xiandaihua jianshe he minjian waijiao. Yanbian dangxiao xuebao 1. CNKI Database.

[10] Yanbianzhou Minwei (1997). Duiwai kaifang duinei gaohua zhashi gongzuo cujin bianjiang de wending he fanrong. Speech given by a cadre in a responsible position in the Yanbian Minwei at a national meeting on Minwei’s work in border areas. Minzu gongzuo 5; Wang Tiezhi & Li Hongjie 1997. Duiwai kaifang yu zhongguo de chaoxianzu. Minzu Yanjiu 6

[11] Han Changzhen (2001). Dangqian wozhou minzu gongzuo minlin de yixiang xin renwu. Report by deputy head of the Standing Committee of the People’s Government in the Yanbian Prefecture (no date available). In Zhu Hongqi, ed., Zhongguo dangdai juece wenku. Yanbian Chaoxianzu zizhizhou lingdao ganbu diaocha lunwen ji. Shang juan. Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 286.

[12] Olivier, Bernard (2001). “Ethnicity as political instrument among the Koreans of Northeast China, pre-1945 to the present.” Korean and Korean-American Studies Bulletin 12:1.

Share

Fake North dollars used to cash UN check in ‘95

Monday, March 26th, 2007

Joong Ang Daily
Lee Sang-il
3/26/2007

North Korean bank allegedly gave counterfeit U.S. $100 notes to a foreigner working for the United Nations Development Program when he cashed a check at a bank in Pyongyang in 1995, a diplomatic source in Washington told the JoongAng Ilbo.

A spokesman for the UN agency confirmed the suspicion, adding that the bills will be handed over to the U.S. Treasury Department for verification.

In 1995, the UNDP’s Pyongyang office issued a check to an Egyptian consultant for his services on a North Korea project.

The consultant claimed that he cashed the check at the Foreign Trade Bank in Pyongyang and that the bank gave him 35 $100 bills.

After returning home, the consultant attempted to exchange the bills for Egyptian currency, but the bills were rejected as fakes, the source said.

The Egyptian sent the bills back to the UNDP office in Pyongyang, and the UN officials confronted the Foreign Trade Bank and asked for real money, the source said. The request was turned down, and the UN agency has been holding the bogus bills for 12 years.

The revelation of the incident highlights charges by the American government that North Korea has been passing so-called “supernotes” ― fake $100 bills ― for many years. Washington’s claim that Banco Delta Asia in Macao was a conduit for the release of the notes was one reason for the freezing of $25 million in North Korean funds in September 2005.

That money is now due to be released as a precondition for progress in the six-party talks. The U.S. has cut the suspect bank’s access to the American financial system.

In an e-mail interview with the JoongAng Ilbo, David Morrison, spokesman for the United Nations Development Program, said the agency is in the process of giving the notes to the Treasury Department. Mr. Morrison said he was not aware of any other incidents.

Mr. Morrison added that the Egyptian consultant has not provided further evidence that the bills were passed by the Pyongyang bank. He also said that UNDP had used Banco Delta Asia to send money to the North to finance projects from January 2000 to December 2002. He said they chose the bank for its convenient financial services.

Asked if North Korea asked the agency to use Banco Delta Asia, Mr. Morrison said it was an independent decision. He said the UN body stopped transactions with the Macao bank when the settlement currency was changed from dollars to euros.

UNDP opened its office in Pyongyang in 1980 and has carried out public hygiene, agricultural, energy and environmental projects.

Share