South Korea reckons with decades of the foreign adoption scandal
Kim Tak-un was four years old when he was adopted by a Swedish family in 1974. Originally from South Korea, Tak-un had lived with his single father, a laborer who moved frequently for work. One day in the summer of 1974, while staying with his aunt, Tak-un wandered outside and disappeared.
Local police considered him abandoned and referred him to an adoption agency, which arranged his adoption to Sweden within five months. When his father realized his son was missing, he searched everywhere, only to discover – too late – that Tak-un had already been sent overseas. Devastated, he demanded Tak-un's return. When the adoption agency failed to respond, he went public with the story.
In March 2025, South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission released initial findings from its investigation into the country's 72-year-old international adoption program. The full report is expected in the next few weeks as the investigation is now completed.
Based on more than 360 cases submitted by Korean adoptees from 11 countries, the commission uncovered widespread human rights violations, including falsified documents, lack of parental consent and cases of child switching – shaking up adoptees and their families.
Since the end of the Korean War (1950–1953), South Korea has sent over 200,000 children abroad, becoming the world's largest country for adoption even as it grew into an advanced economy.
Existing studies have shown that international adoption from South Korea began as a response to the large number of mixed-heritage children born to Korean mothers and US soldiers during the war.
It is estimated that thousands of such children were born and South Korea's first president, Syngman Rhee, ordered their overseas placement on the grounds that they were 'unfit' for a nation imagined as ethnically homogeneous.
However, international adoption did not end once this perceived 'emergency' was over. From the mid-1960s onward, it expanded to include children from other vulnerable backgrounds, including those affected by poverty, family breakdown and out-of-wedlock births. This, and the role of international adoption, is explored in my upcoming book.
This was closely tied to the policies pursued by South Korea's military regimes. The most important figure was Park Chung Hee, a military general who came to power through a 1961 coup and ruled until his assassination in 1979.
His regime prioritized rapid economic growth, relegating social welfare to the lowest priority. Childcare was treated as an individual, not a state, responsibility. As I point out in my earlier research, public systems to categorize and care for children – whether abandoned, lost, or runaway – were extremely limited, and authorities largely placed the burden on parents to retrieve their separated children. This is probably why, after only cursory checks, authorities referred Tak-un to an adoption agency.
Tak-un's case attracted media attention in Sweden as well. However, in an interview with Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish national board of health and welfare – which oversaw the Korean adoption program – dismissed the claims, stating they were '99 percent certain' the story was false and insisting that Korean social workers had followed proper procedures.
The trust that Swedish authorities placed in South Korean adoption procedures may have been because of the way the Korean social workers presented their work. As the first generation of Koreans trained in US-style professional social work, they framed international adoption as being about the child, the importance of a family, and emotional wellbeing.
The research for my upcoming book shows that while they may have genuinely believed in international adoption as a valid form of child welfare, there were also practical reasons why this happened. With virtually no public funding for child welfare, many saw international adoption – where adoptive parents covered the costs of care – as an ideal way to apply their training.
In interviews with me, now-retired social workers acknowledged flaws in South Korea's broader child welfare system, such as the inability to verify a child's true status. Yet, without public resources to build a reliable system or prioritize family reunification, they often treated international adoption as a first, rather than a last, resort.
Moreover, the prevailing belief at the time that 'normal' middle-class families offered the most stable environment for a child's development provided further moral justification for sending children abroad.
Western authorities often interpreted Korean social workers' professionalism as evidence of shared liberal child welfare values and placed strong trust in their procedures. When serious flaws surfaced – as in Tak-un's case – they were frequently dismissed as exceptions rather than signs of deeper systemic problems.
Even when the facts were confirmed in 1975, Swedish authorities still refused to return the child. The Swedish consul-general in Seoul at the time, Lars Berg, argued that it was in Tak-un's 'best interest' to remain in Sweden, rather than be sent back to 'an uncertain fate of the father without work and residence.'
This reflected, in part, Sweden's domestic realities: Like many Western societies at the time, Sweden faced a shortage of adoptable children, and international adoption had become an important way to meet the wishes of prospective parents.
In the early 1970s, nearly half of all internationally adopted children arriving in Sweden came from South Korea. This meant that when issues like Tak-un's emerged, Swedish authorities prioritized the rights of adoptive parents, framing their defense in the language of child welfare.
Sweden's Adoption Commission has just released its own report on June 2, examining the country's international adoption practices, including those involving South Korea. Echoing my research findings, it recommended an end to allowing Swedes to adopt children from abroad.
So, what became of Tak-un? Ultimately, South Korean officials acquiesced to the Swedish authorities, and the Korean adoption agency was cleared of any wrongdoing. Tak-un never returned. The last trace in the archives is his birth father's plea to hear from him.
I located Tak-un, who now goes by his Swedish name and lives in a small town in Sweden. Despite attempts to reach him, he didn't respond. It remains uncertain whether his father's message ever reached him or if he knows anything about his early life in Korea.
This silence is not merely personal. A system that claimed to act for the child's welfare instead routinely erased adopted children's pasts, ignored their birth families and decided their futures for them. Tak-un's story isn't just a painful exception – it is a haunting reminder of what was lost in the name of care.
Youngeun Koo is an assistant professor at the Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies, Lund University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
9 hours ago
- Asia Times
US attacks hurt but Iran's nuclear ambition will endure
With stealth bombers and bunker busters, the US just punched a hole through the heart of Iran's fortified nuclear program. Multiple news outlets reported that US forces struck Iran's three primary nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, late Saturday (June 21) in a significant escalation of Middle East tensions. The operation follows Israel's June 13 air offensive, which targeted suspected Iranian weapons development sites and other military targets. In a televised address, US President Donald Trump declared the 'spectacular' operation had 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's enrichment facilities while warning of more precision strikes if Tehran refuses peace. The US strikes involved B-2 bombers, six so-called bunker-buster bombs on Fordow and 30 Tomahawk missiles on Natanz and Isfahan. Iranian media said the sites were evacuated earlier. The IAEA said no radioactive contamination was detected from the attacked facilities. Trump emphasized the US does not seek regime change and reached out diplomatically after the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the strikes, calling them historic. Iran maintains its program is peaceful and vowed to continue nuclear advancement. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the attack as a 'dangerous escalation,' warning of global fallout. The coordinated use of stealth bombers and deep-penetration munitions against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan demonstrated a calibrated show of force aimed at degrading Iran's breakout capability without crossing the threshold of full-scale war or regime decapitation. Describing the defenses and importance of the Iranian nuclear sites just hit, CNN reports that Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment complex, houses 50,000 centrifuges in hardened underground layers, where targeting subterranean power is key to disruption. CNN adds that Fordow lies 80–90 meters beneath mountainous terrain, is impervious to most munitions and can rapidly produce weapons-grade uranium. It adds that Isfahan, central to Iran's nuclear research and development, hosts three research reactors and multiple conversion and fuel production lines operated by 3,000 scientists. CNN observes that these deeply embedded, high-output sites are both extremely resilient and strategically essential, making them high-risk yet high-priority in any strike calculus. While Israel has previously attacked those facilities, it does not have any ordnance that could destroy deeply embedded facilities such as Fordow. A ground raid similar to the January 2025 operation against Iranian underground missile facilities in Syria is its only plausible option. However, those nuclear sites are arguably much more distant, complex, heavily defended and fortified compared to the missile bases Israel raided in Syria, making an air attack with US-delivered ordnance was the better option to take them out. According to Defense Today, the GBU-57 can penetrate over 200 feet of reinforced concrete using a high-density Eglin steel (ES-1) casing. According to the report, the GBU-57 carries 2,400 kilograms of AFX-757 and PBXN-114 explosives, ten times the power of its predecessor, the BLU-109. Defense Today states the 20.5-foot GBU-57 is deployable only by B-2 bombers, two per plane, and is the US Air Force's top option against fortified Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) targets. Regarding the Tomahawk cruise missile, Naval Technology notes that the munition is designed for precision land-attack missions from naval platforms. The report states that the 1,300-kilogram, 5.56-meter subsonic cruise missile flies at 880 kilometers per hour and has a range of 1,600 kilometers. Naval Technology says that, although in service since the 1980s, the Tomahawk's Block V upgrade adds advanced navigation, satellite communications and in-flight retargeting capabilities. It adds that the missile could be armed with W80 nuclear warheads or a unitary 450-kilogram high-explosive warhead, with variants supporting submunitions and maritime strikes. The War Zone (TWZ) notes that while specifics of the operation remain classified, the B-2s may have launched from Diego Garcia or forward locations under extreme secrecy, supported by extensive electronic warfare to disrupt Iranian command and control. TWZ reports that the mission aimed to degrade critical enrichment infrastructure while minimizing exposure, marking the US's kinetic entry into the Israel-Iran conflict. While it may be too early to say whether the US strikes destroyed Iran's nuclear sites, as Trump has claimed, Newsweek reports the targeted facilities were evacuated beforehand, suggesting significant quantities of highly enriched uranium (HEU) may have been removed. Further, it remains unclear how Iran will respond to the massive blow to its nuclear program. According to Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi, military strikes alone won't destroy Iran's nuclear program; Israel's goal, as Brookings notes, is complete dismantlement, but that may be wishful thinking. Underscoring this point, Carlo Caro writes in Cipher Brief that Iran's nuclear infrastructure includes redundant nodes across military, academic and industrial sectors, possibly enabling rapid reconstitution after a strike. Caro notes that Iran's domestic centrifuge manufacturing eliminates reliance on foreign supply chains, while its passive defense doctrine mirrors North Korean survivability strategies. He states that crucial assets, such as design archives, simulation models and trained personnel, are mobile, concealed and legally ambiguous under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Thus, he suggests precision air campaigns will merely delay progress and cannot dismantle Iran's institutionalized nuclear latency or strategic breakout potential. Given those caveats, Brookings notes that overthrowing the Iranian theocratic regime may be the only way to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. However, it warns that regime change is difficult and that a successor regime, most likely led by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), is unlikely to be less interested in nuclear weapons than its predecessor. Highlighting the difficulty of engineering regime change in Iran, Narges Bajoghli writes in Time that the Islamic Republic's deeply entrenched, multilayered defense architecture and institutional resilience make regime change unfeasible. Bajoghli points out that, unlike Iraq or Libya, Iran fields a dual military, the regular Artesh and the elite IRGC, backed by the pervasive Basij network, enabling asymmetric warfare and internal control. She emphasizes that decades of siege doctrine, hardened by war and sanctions, have fostered a system built for survival, not collapse. Bajoghli also writes that Iran's leadership is decentralized under a competitive authoritarian framework, enabling continuity even under duress. She stresses that foreign-imposed regime change would likely galvanize nationalist resistance, replicating Iraq's catastrophic aftermath after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Rather than destabilize the Iranian regime, Bajoghli says airstrikes risk reinforcing Iran's nuclear deterrence doctrine and undermining prospects for diplomacy. Further, an emboldened and determined Iran doubling down on its nuclear program could lead to a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for one, has warned his country would acquire nuclear weapons if Iran crossed that threshold.
RTHK
10 hours ago
- RTHK
'Iran reserves all options to defend itself'
'Iran reserves all options to defend itself' A satellite image shows trucks positioned near the entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility. Image: Reuters Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday said the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities were "outrageous" and "will have everlasting consequences.' In a post on X, Araqchi said the attacks were a "grave violation" of the UN charter, international law and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people," he said. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would be legitimate targets. State media in Iran reported that there were "no signs of contamination" at the nuclear sites at Esfahan, Fordo and Natanz which were hit in the US airstrikes, quoting a statement from the country's National Nuclear Safety System Center. "There is no danger to the residents living around the aforementioned sites," the statement said. Hassan Abedini, deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster, said the three targeted nuclear sites had been evacuated 'a while ago,' adding that Iran "didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out." (Xinhua, AFP)
South China Morning Post
14 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Israel-Iran conflict: world reacts to US strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities
The reaction of world leaders after US forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday (Iran time) ranged from Israel lauding President Donald Trump's decision to the UN calling for de-escalation and some countries condemning the attacks. Israel 'Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history. History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a recorded statement. United Nations 'I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a statement. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.' New Zealand 'We acknowledge developments in the last 24 hours, including President Trump's announcement of US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it is critical further escalation is avoided. New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action,' New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters said in a statement. Australia
