Why are some defector groups accusing the Korea Hana Foundation (KHF) of losing sight of its mission and edging defectors out of key roles?

Vocal parts of the North Korean defector community in South Korea continue to lock horns with the KHF – which until March was known as the North Korean Refugee Foundation (NKRF) – on a very public basis.

Established in 2010, the foundation offers a variety of resettlement aid services to newly arrived defectors. While the majority of escaped North Koreans and native South Koreans see it as playing necessary role, a recent rally led by defectors at Seoul Station square indicates deep-rooted disagreements between a union of defector groups and the KHF administration.

While a major point of contention is the recent change of the foundation’s name from the NKRF to the KHF, critics have also voiced dissatisfaction with the foundation’s budgeting practices and lack of defector representation on its board.

FOR DEFECTORS, BY DEFECTORS?

The hiring issue is a primary talking point for Han Chang-kwon, chairman of the Association of North Korea Defector Organizations (ANKDO), whose website describes them as a loose union of around 30 defector-run NGOs opposing certain decisions undertaken by the KHF.

‘The problem is that there aren’t any defectors in management positions, as department heads or board of directors’

Little-known outside the North Korean defector community, Han was a traditional medicine doctor in North Korea before defecting to South Korea in 1994. He is a vocal critic of KHF director Jong Ok-im, a former legislator with the conservative Saenuri Party who, upon failing to gain re-election in the Gangnam district, was appointed foundation director by President Park Geun-hye.

Han has called for Jong’s resignation as well as budget and hiring reforms at the KHF.

“The problem is that there aren’t any defectors in management positions, as department heads or board of directors,” said Han. “Even for the consultant positions, up until last year, there were only 17 defectors among 98 people. The rest were South Koreans. They only recently began bringing in more defectors after becoming aware of our position.”

Han is not the first to levy such criticisms: In an October 2013 column in New Focus, defector/activist Jang Jin-sung called the NKRF (now KHF) “structurally wrong-headed,” and “less a refugee support foundation than an institution with a 25.6 billion won (approximately $25 million) budget dependent on North Korean defectors.” Jang said the foundation fails to effectively spend its budget because South Koreans – not North Korean defectors – are running the show.

Jang’s column came right at the end of the three-year term of Kim Il-ju, the foundation’s first director, and just before Jong’s appointment. Among his wishes were that Jong have the “eyes and ears” of defectors close to her – meaning she ought to appoint at least three defector board members.

The foundation, for its part, has said 21 percent of its regular full-time staff are North Korean defectors.

“This is really a non-issue because defectors are just as open to apply for our advertised positions as everyone else,” Kwon Eun-sung, the KHF’s deputy general manager for PR and cooperation, told NK News.

The Ministry of Unification, however, has exclusive authority in appointing board members, Kwon said.

Also, there is disagreement with Han and his supporters’ contention that an organization for defectors should be staffed with defectors.

‘Rather than hiring a lot of defectors, proficient people need to be hired’

“Rather than hiring a lot of defectors, proficient people need to be hired,” said Kim Young-il, executive director of People for Successful Corean Unification (PSCORE), an NGO that promotes unification and assists defectors.

NKRF VS. KHF

Another frequently noted point of contention has been the change of the foundation’s promotional name from the North Korean Refugees Foundation to the Korea Hana Foundation (the foundation’s legal name remains the NKRF).

“The organization’s objective is to help defectors settle in South Korea,” Han told NK News, “It’s an act of deception to change it from the old one to the new one – it destroys the original, true nature and purpose of the organization.”

In press releases on the website, Han laid out three reasons he and other defectors oppose the name change: 1) it would scrub the presence of North Korean defectors from the organization; 2) it is a waste of the limited funds earmarked for defector settlement support; 3) while it would only affect the “promotional” rather than the “legal” name of the organization, the promotional name is used more frequently.

Han’s argument was echoed in an open letter published by New Focus and addressed to the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, on August 4. The letter warned that, by changing the name, Jong was damaging the most sensitive part of defectors’ identities, and that because the legal name for defectors in South Korea is “North Korean refugees,” this should be part of the foundation’s name.

Some experts agree that the name change could potentially “water down” the original founding principles of the foundation.

“I feel like this name change potentially obfuscates the purpose of the organization, which is to strive to improve the settlement process for individuals arriving from North Korea,” said Markus Bell, an expert on North Korean defector issues.

KHF has stated publicly that the name change was because the NKHF was too long and difficult to say in the original Korean, and that the NKRF name did not have a good “nuance” and left ordinary people with a negative perception of the organization.

The new name, on the other hand, reflects the organization’s role in aiding defectors as they adapt to life in the South, the KHF said.

The foundation further argues that the new name also unifies the foundation with other defector related organizations, including Hanawon and Hana Centers. The name was reportedly chosen from among 1,400 others through an online survey and approved by the foundation’s board.

Kwon said there are no plans to change the organization’s name.

BUDGET DISPUTES

There appear to be even more pressing matters than the name change at hand – namely those related to KHF’s budget issues.

Questions over how the foundation has been spending its money from parts of the defector community are nothing new. In his 2013 article, Jang questioned the spending habits of former foundation director Kim Il-ju and the foundation as a whole. He wasn’t the only one.

“I confronted former director Kim Il-ju on multiple occasions about using the budget properly,” said Han. “We argued about this on-and-off for a very long time.”

Wasteful spending is no less of an issue under Jong, Han said. Recent press releases by Han’s group have also called out Jong for her large salary and spending defector settlement money on “luxuries” for her office.

Having requested KHF’s ledgers in April this year under the Public Information Act, Han said that the entries are far too vague to lay his suspicions to rest.

“There is too much money wasted on things like personnel expenses and a bunch of defector surveys and studies,” said Han. “Subtract that from the budget and there is very little left for actual support. That’s why we want defectors to be on the board of directors – so that there is some accountability for this kind of thing.”

But in a recent statement, the foundation denied any wrongful use of funds, stating that all available funds are used “directly for defector settlement purposes.”

“The understanding that outsiders who claim corruption in the budget have of the budget is far different than that of the Ministry of Unification – which oversees foundation funds – the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the National Assembly,” Kwon said.

“If it was known that a government agency was not using its funds properly outside the organization, this would have already caused an issue inside the government first.”

‘If done right, the existence of these kinds of defector support groups could put a considerable amount of pressure on the North Korean government’

Kwon also pointed out that no budget-related issues had been raised during the recent yearly legislative review of the foundation.

Despite Han’s criticism of the KHF, he said that he would like to see the organization fixed, not disbanded.

“I know there are people out there who want to get rid of KHF altogether,” said Han. “But as long as a period of trial-and-error can be overcome, I think that the organization could be a good thing for a lot of people. If done right, the existence of these kinds of defector support groups could put a considerable amount of pressure on the North Korean government.”

One expert pointed out that the KHF is by no means the only provider of supportive functions for defectors.

“I think the defector community as a whole would cope without the foundation as there are other agencies that perform supportive functions, including the MOU and Hana Centers, and indeed many defectors get by fine without dealing with it at all,” said Sokeel Park, director of research and strategy for Liberty in North Korea.

Still, another emphasized the role the organization plays in helping them adjust.

“While the KHF has experienced some controversial times, of late, this is not the moment to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” said Bell. “New arrivals from North Korea require support services that address the gamut of psychological, economic, social and ideological hurdles that need to be overcome. As many scholars have rightly stated, getting to South Korea is just the beginning of the challenge.”

Picture: Eric Lafforgue, NK News Edit