Why do so many North Korean women resort to leaving their children born in China and resettle alone in South Korea? What survival strategies have they employed? And what conditions contribute to them becoming transnational mothers? To answer, this article explores the status of North Korean border-crossers in China, the influence of the one-child policy and industrialization on North Koreans’ gendered migration, and China’s hukou household registration system. Drawing on ethnographic research, the article argues that the mothers’ migration and kinship are grounded in a search for security, repositioning themselves for greater control of their lives and futures. Practices of transnational mothering emerge as North Korean women resettle in South Korea and become long-distance mothers to their children who remain with their Chinese fathers.

This article examines the spatial and temporal changes of North Korean (NK) migration by analyzing the interactive process between NKs’ efforts to cross borders amidst changing geopolitical and economic circumstances and the activities at the domestic, local, state, and international levels to manage displacement from a gender perspective. In doing so, I argue that the border between North Korea and China became violent and that NK migrations became spatially gendered and class-stratified. The proportion of NK women entering South Korea remains high, primarily due to the secondary migration of those who have long resided in China in de facto marriage relationships with Chinese men. In contrast, among recent direct defectors, NK men constitute a significant proportion and they often play an active role in family migration.

This article serves as an introduction to this special issue, which focuses on the current situation of North Korean (NK) migration and the safety and resilience of NK migrants from a gender perspective. This introduction highlights the importance of this topic by examining debates about the influence of China as a transit space on gendered mobility and security, the geopolitical implications for the daily lives of NK migrants, and the agency of NK women. We anticipate that the provision of up-to-date data and the application of multidisciplinary analysis based on different research methodologies will deepen the understanding of the changing landscape of NK migration and the (in)securities experienced by these migrants, and contribute to the discovery of possible and critical ways to empower them.

This article aims to explain why recent tensions between religious groups in Papua, Indonesia, did not develop into ethnoreligious conflicts such as those which broke out in Ambon and Poso. Such tensions are likely to occur because of the migration of Muslim ethnicities from elsewhere in Indonesia that leads to political, racial, religious, and economic divisions. Migrant populations are generally Malay, Muslim, and prosperous, while native Papuans are Melanesian, Christian, and impoverished. The Christian indigenous Papuans feel threatened by the influx of Muslim migrants. Based on Lederach’s concept of peace agents, we argue that the adoption of cultural mechanisms driving peace agencies is central to preventing ethnoreligious conflict. The curricula of local schools should include such local wisdom in order to reach all ethnoreligious groups.

Poles exhibit contrasting attitudes towards absent Muslim refugees and physically present Ukrainian labor immigrants. Both groups have been historically seen as “Significant Others,” potentially perilous to the nation. Today, however, Muslims are rejected, while Ukrainians are accepted. This situation can be attributed to historical, ethnic, political, social, and economic factors, all of which are discussed here. The ethnic, linguistic, and religious superhomogeneity of Polish society affects the approach to the “culturally distant” Muslim migrants who were cynically rejected by the right-wing populist authorities during the 2015 refugee crisis. Economic necessity justifies the acceptance of the Ukrainians, who are perceived as culturally close. It is argued here that within the category of Significant Others, it is necessary to distinguish between Distant/Absent/Hostile and Familiar/Present/Tolerated Significant Others.