Long Road Home: Testimony of a North Korean Camp Survivor (2 page)

K.Y. and K.S.Y.

Author’s Note

For transliteration of Korean words, I will consistently use the official Korean-language romanization system released by South Korea’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism in 2000. However, for words well known in the English-speaking world, I will use the conventional transliteration instead of strictly applying the 2000 romanization system: hence “Pyongyang” instead of “Pyeoyang,” “Kim Jong-il” instead of “Kim Jeong-il.” In order to clarify the original pronunciation, I will separate syllables with hyphens when necessary.

Following the Korean convention, for all Korean names used in this book, family names precede personal names: hence “Kim Jong-il” instead of “Jong-il Kim.” Kim Yong made it clear that he wishes to protect some individuals by using initials, not real names, to designate them.

Introduction

BY KIM SUK-YOUNG

North Korea is a place of palpable contradictions. On the one hand, in the years immediately following the devastating Japanese colonial rule (1910–45) and the Korean War (1950–53), it achieved a remarkable degree of economic growth and social reconstruction. On the other hand, it has sustained its legitimacy through a ruthless dictatorship and personality cult that can only be maintained at the cost of forsaking civil society and human rights. According to North Korea’s official claim, everyone lives a happy life, and yet, in recent years, so many have left this paradise in search of food and better chances for survival. In North Korea people live very closely with their family and neighbors in tightly knit communities, but at the same time, most fear to speak their minds freely, even to the closest members of their family. Amid these contradictions, Kim Yong lived a life marked by unexpected turns and impasses. Here he invites us to travel with him along the discursive unfolding of his fate.

Kim Yong’s vicissitude directly reflects the historical scars modern Korea carries to this day. Born in 1950, the year the Korean War broke out, he tells a story that grew out of Korea’s precarious realities in the aftermath of World War II, the subsequent partition, and the perpetuation of division throughout the Cold War era. Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945, and when Japan surrendered to the Allied Forces in the final days of the Pacific War, Koreans rejoiced at the prospect of establishing an independent state. However, despite this unanimous desire to become a sovereign nation, Korean society was anything but a monolithic entity in 1945. Emerging from the long period of colonial rule by a nation that many Koreans disparage as culturally inferior, Korea in 1945 consisted of motley segments of social groups who held varying interests and colliding ideals about their future as an independent postcolonial nation. This variegated social spectrum could be best described as two opposing ideological camps with the vast majority of Koreans in the ambiguous area situated in the middle. Carter Eckert and other historians have detailed this polarized makeup of postcolonial Korean society in the following terms:

To the right of the line were the majority of propertied and educated Koreans, many of whom had cooperated in one way or another with the colonial regime. Most were resistant to social changes such as land reform. Others, including some of the more progressive landlords who had transferred a portion of their assets into industry, regarded change as inevitable, but were anxious to control and contain it so as to preserve their privileged positions in the society. Also on the right were those Koreans with less education and little or no property who had faithfully served the Japanese state, such as the Koreans who comprised about forty percent of the colonial police force. On the left side of the spectrum were Koreans of varying backgrounds, including students, intellectuals, peasants, and workers who had been politicized by the colonial experience. Some were actual members of the Communist Party or felt an affinity toward communism as a force that had opposed Japanese rule and advocated justice for the poor and oppressed. All were committed first to a thorough purge of collaborators from positions of power and influence. They sought, in addition, some form of redistribution of wealth, such as land reform, that would redress the inequities of the past and transform Korea into a more egalitarian society.
¹

The division of Korea was not only a geographic division by the Allied forces along the 38th parallel but also an internal stratification among Koreans. Although this social divide might have been typical of any postcolonial state that emerged after World War II, what set postcolonial Korea apart was its unfortunate geopolitical proximity to the center of shifting power dynamics between the United States and the Soviet Union at the dawn of the Cold War. The tension between the two forces that occupied the Korean peninsula escalated, but Koreans, despite their diverse class and political affiliations, shared a strong common desire to establish an undivided nation. That desire was met with challenges posed by the Allied forces, which set out to address the messy legacies left by thirty-six years of Japan’s colonial rule over Korea—most significantly, to disarm a significant number of Imperial Army troops left in Korean territory when Japan surrendered in August 1945. The United States and the Soviet Union divided the task by separating Korea into two halves along the 38th parallel; the north was entrusted to the Soviet Union and the south to the United States.

The division into two Koreas was anything but the Korean people’s own desire. As Gregory Henderson, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, noted: “No division of a nation in the present world is so astonishing in its origin as the division of Korea; none is so unrelated to conditions or sentiment within the nation itself at the time the division was effected; none is to this day so unexplained.”
²
The 38th parallel was supposed to serve as a temporary border separating two zones of bilateral trusteeship in Korea. But as Cold War politics dominated the dynamics of the inter-Korean relationship, the 38th parallel became the border between two hostile regimes, North and South Korea. In 1948, each held its own elections and subsequently established a separate government, turning what started out as a temporary line into an impermeable wall that blocked the free movement of people and ideology. The two regimes collided in a tragic civil war that claimed millions of lives on both sides before being brought to a halt through armistice in 1953. The 38th parallel still functions as a rigid border in the post–Korean War era.

What complicated the internal politics of partitioned Korea was the fact that the division imposed by the outside forces did not symmetrically separate the political left and right into North and South Korea, but arbitrarily created two sides composed of discursive groups with varying interests and backgrounds. After the 1945 partition and especially after the end of the Korean War in 1953, there still remained pockets of resistance within each regime—most notably, leftist communist sympathizers in the south and antirevolutionaries, including landlords and former collaborators of Japan and America, in the north—all to be brutally suppressed by the regimes led by the pro-American Li Seungman in the south and the Soviet-backed Kim Il-sung in the north. The large population in the middle with neither political interest nor clearly defined positions was eventually forced to follow the ideological orientation of the respective regimes. It was under these circumstances that Kim Yong’s father became trapped on the wrong side of the border in the aftermath of the Korean War. Having worked as an informant for the American troops and the South Korean army and thereby contributed to the North Korean forces’ arrest during the war, Kim Yong’s father belonged to the poisonous segment of collaborators with foreign imperialists in the north. He thus earned arguably the worst kind of “antirevolutionary” label in North Korean society—a stigma so formidable that it would even doom the following generation.

Given how brutally North Korea suppressed any collaborators of its sworn enemies—South Korea, Japan, and America—it would have been much better for Kim’s father and his family to have ended up south of the border. This, of course, is an observation with a benefit of hindsight; amid the three years of chaotic war, who could have known that the division of Korea would only be strengthened for more than half a century? From the end of the Korean War up to the present moment,
³
both Koreas have prohibited their citizens from engaging in any level of humanitarian contact outside of government-controlled channels, such as communications between separated family members, intellectual and cultural exchanges, and any type of political discourse. Unfortunately, in the process of creating two ideologically and politically hostile regimes out of one homogenous nation, the division of Korea was hardened into a structure that has perpetuated the rituals of the Cold War and regulates every aspect of life in both parts.
⁴
Free discussion of the other side—unless it took the form of fierce anti–South or North Korean propaganda—was unthinkable for Koreans.

Thus, the foundation of the North Korean state itself was predicated on the illegitimacy of the other side, South Korea, perceived as a puppet state obsequiously bowing to the evil Japanese and American imperialists and compromising the dignity of the Korean people. In comparison, North Korea founded its legitimacy as the righteous Korean state upon nationalistic ideals of self-reliance. Based on the close reading of materials that recently became available at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Bruce Cumings suggests that, unlike many assumed, North Korea was far from being a typical Soviet puppet state:

The closest comparisons to North Korea were Romania and Yugoslavia—not the states under complete Soviet hegemony, such as East Germany…. Soviet influence competed with Chinese influence, and both conflicted with indigenous political forms and practices. The Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) was and is a divergent case among postwar Marxist-Leninist systems, representing a profound reassertion of native Korean political practice—from the superordinate role of the leader to his self-reliant ideology, to the Hermit Kingdom foreign policy.
⁵

The unique path that has emerged in the north has deep roots in a Korean brand of nationalism that puts much emphasis on racial purity and the nation as a tightly controlled patriarchal family. Such a strong focus on ethnocentric nationalism, after all, is not too different from the approach taken in the south. Using this nationalist directive coupled with progressive socialist reforms, North Korea was able to undertake popular reforms such as the collectivization of land and the institutionalization of mandatory primary education.

To a certain degree, the newborn North Korean state in the early years was faithful to these collective ideals as it made noteworthy progress, fueled by the enthusiasm of its people, the charismatic leadership of Kim Il-sung, and generous aid from the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. In the first decade following its establishment, North Korea was a place brimming with energy and ambition led by Kim Il-sung, who had spent his formative years in Manchuria fighting the Japanese imperial army in a guerrilla squad and then in the People’s Liberation Army as well as the Soviet Army, before returning to liberated Korea in 1945. North Koreans, even the majority of defectors who voluntarily left, still revere Kim Il-sung as the only legitimate leader of the independent Korean nation and the father who genuinely cared for his people. Even after his death in 1994, he still inspires awe and respect from North Korean people who look to his governance as the golden days gone by. We see the same kind of deep and sincere affection felt by Kim Yong for the Great Leader, from his childhood until his arrest.

As much as Kim Il-sung was loved by the North Korean people, he was equally ambitious and ruthless in consolidating his power. On the domestic front, he achieved this end through brutal purges of his political enemies that terrorized many, including his closest allies. One of the most visible targets to emerge in the process was those who had assisted Japanese imperialists and Americans during Japanese colonial rule and the subsequent Korean War. To have a father labeled as an American spy was to have a death sentence in the North Korean context, and it was under these conditions that Kim Yong’s mother decided to disguise him as a war orphan and place him in a state-run orphanage to guarantee him a better future.

A state-run orphanage might not conjure up a happy picture in readers’ minds, but in North Korea, the situation was somewhat different in the 1950s. One of the ways North Korea attempted to invent itself as socialist paradise was through the humane treatment of orphans who had lost their parents during Japanese colonial rule and the Korean War. There are numerous narratives about how the national father Kim Il-sung treated war orphans as if they were his own children. Countless propaganda paintings and posters featuring Kim Il-sung greeting war orphans in tattered clothes and bare feet and welcoming them into his red-carpeted office adorn print media and public spaces. By all accounts, these propaganda efforts seem to have emerged out of the North Korean state’s sincere desire to provide for the orphans. As Kim Yong’s narrative recounts, they were even sent to orphanages in other socialist countries on exchange programs in order to testify not only to their homeland’s growing socialist friendship but also to North Korea’s successful care of the most vulnerable members of its society. As we learn from Kim Yong’s testimony, Kim Il-sung must have genuinely felt for war orphans, so much so that he even instructed party leaders to adopt them and provide for them equally as their own children—a directive that was faithfully followed by Kim Yong’s adoptive parents and profoundly shaped Kim’s future.

Not only war orphans but also North Korean children in general were treated as important members of society. Until the devastating famine in the 1990s, by all indications, children in North Korea were regarded with love and care as long as their family members had the proper class background, such as anti-Japanese guerrilla fighters during the colonial period, impoverished peasants, workers, soldiers, and war martyrs. As Helen-Louise Hunter argues, “parents dote on their children no less than parents anywhere else in the world. In fact, if anything, they seem to live for their children, perhaps because their own lives offer little but hope for a better future for their children. Parents make sacrifices gladly, saving as much as they can all during their lives to secure the best for their children.”
⁶
For a brief period, Kim Yong also had lavish pampering by his adoptive parents, but it should be emphasized that his life in this adoptive family represents a very small fraction of childhood experience in North Korea. The power and privilege his adoptive parents enjoyed cannot be viewed as a general condition of families residing in Pyongyang, let alone those living in the rural areas.