MUST READ
If you haven’t read it yet, head over to Coming Anarchy and read both Curzon’s post on immigrant success in Japan and the netizen discussion that follows it.
Barbarians in 21st century Japan
Previous post: Nude Hedgehog?
Next post: Damn, that’s grim
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for the link. Still not sure what to think about the post nor the following comments. My own experience in Japan left me debating myself on the whole immigration issue. There’s certainly enormous room for improvement there but also a measure of flexibility that I haven’t seen in other Asian countries. I’m not sure what to make of it but it’s an interesting issue to follow.
I’m also curious about the openness of Japan to refugees, relative to other Asian nations. I’ve periodically reviewed the statistical reports of the UNHCR that list the number of refugees accepted, pending, and denied for each signatory country and from where the refugee applicants had originated. The “apparent” openness of Japan relative to other Asian nations was astounding. Take that with a grain of salt though as Japan’s openness relative to other developed countries is rather pitiful.
One glaring ommission from any of UNHCR’s reports especially regarding country of origin, is North Korea. It seems through South Korea’s own reports to the commission, in keeping with the dictums of their constitution do not regard North Koreans as refugees. If South Korea doesn’t, then why should China???
“It seems through South Korea’s own reports to the commission, in keeping with the dictums of their constitution do not regard North Koreans as refugees. If South Korea doesn’t, then why should China???”
I think this is a little disingenuous, Mr. Chips. The reason South Korea doesn’t classify North Koreans as refugees is that “the constitution legally defines South Korea, or the Republic of Korea (ROK), as the entire peninsula and its adjacent islands. North Korea and its citizens are part of South Korea, according to Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution.”
China, on the other hand, ignores its obligations under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and gives North Koreans the spurious title “economic migrants.” What’s more, it does this in full knowledge of the fate awaiting the poor souls it ships back to the North.
Please understand that I’m throwing these ideas out just to throw out ideas. I don’t want to sound dogmatic in this. I’m not at all secure in my own mind that what I’m saying is the right course of action here. Just somethings to think about…
I know it sounds disingenuous but it’s the actual situation, the realpolitik. South Korea’s constitution is a big nationalist chest thump that doesn’t take into account the well-being of North Korean citizens. To the contrary in fact, the intransigence of South Korea in not recognizing the status of North Korea as a separate political entity is done so at the expense of North Korean refugees. I understand the legal reason why South Korea doesn’t label North Korean refugees as such and I think perhaps it’s an outdated reason.
It seems to me though that the disingenuousness lies with the South Korean government. In the name of some fictitious unified nation South Koreans have stuck with Article 2 even though to scrap the clause of sovereignty over the entire peninsula would take that loophole away from China and provide greater opportunity for North Koreans to seek refuge in “Another Country.” (Please don’t confuse that term with any connection to Bruce Cummings work of the same title).
I’m more concerned with the safety of the refugees than South Korea’s claim to sovereignty in the North. China, meanwhile, is technically abiding by the letter of the law and isn’t bound by any obligations of the 1951 (although China only begrudgingly signed onto that in 1982) convention regarding North Korean citizens headed to South Korea.
Anyway, I think South Korea would lose nothing by formally acknowledging the de facto state of control in North Korea nor would they weaken any attempts at reunification in the event of a regime collapse. Morever, if the two “Nations” later agreed to a gradual confederation-styled government, having that clause removed would be of great value and could provide a foundation for eventual integration of the two nations into one.
You must log in to post a comment.