Migrating heritage in diaspora diplomacy: Korean independence archives under contestation

Abstract

Diaspora diplomacy has attracted growing attention as states and international organizations increasingly recognize the political and economic significance of diasporic communities, leading to more systematic policies of diaspora engagement grounded in national identity. This study examines migrating heritage within diaspora diplomacy through the case of the Korean National Association Attic Relics, archival records documenting the Korean independence movement in the United States during the period of Japanese colonial rule in Korea. Situating the case within South Korea's evolving frameworks of institutionalized diaspora engagement, the study examines how heritage circulates through processes of discovery, custodianship, loan, and exhibition, mediating negotiations over authority, belonging, and historical memory among state agencies, museums, and diaspora communities. By foregrounding migrating heritage as a site of negotiation and diplomatic encounter, this study highlights the value of more dialogic and co-stewardship-oriented approaches to diaspora engagement that recognize heritage as a shared and negotiated space within diaspora diplomacy.

Introduction

Diaspora diplomacy has garnered growing attention as states and international organizations have progressively institutionalized diasporic engagement within diplomacy and global governance, rather than treating diasporas solely as economic or political resources (Gamlen, 2014; Ho, 2011, 2020). By the 1990s, many sending countries had begun viewing their diaspora populations as assets, leading to the development of targeted emigrant policies, and by the mid-2010s the scale of international migration had further prompted both states and international institutions to engage diasporas more directly in diplomacy and governance (Délano and Gamlen, 2014; Gamlen, 2014; Kennedy, 2020). In this context, diaspora communities have emerged as both a source and an instrument of soft power, projecting culture and values across borders and shaping how states accrue symbolic and cultural capital internationally. Academic studies and state-level policies have increasingly recognized that diasporas affect domestic politics, influence economic priorities, and commend host countries for their relevance in international relations (Cull, 2022; Ho and McConnell, 2017). However, despite the growing literature on diaspora diplomacy, little attention has been paid to diaspora heritage, especially the notion of migrating heritage.

Diaspora heritage lies at the heart of these diplomatic engagements, providing the cultural language through which states and diasporic communities articulate identity, belonging, and shared history. While both diaspora heritage and migrating heritage are fluid and negotiated as living cultural practices, diaspora heritage encompasses the collective memories and identities sustained by diaspora communities, whereas migrating heritage emphasizes the processes through which these elements are transformed and mobilized as they move across transnational contexts (Innocenti, 2015). As a relatively recent interdisciplinary concept, migrating heritage signals a shift away from traditional heritage frameworks grounded in stable national or cultural identities, emphasizing instead the fluid and negotiated nature of identity and belonging across borders as cultural meanings are continually reshaped through transnational interactions (Innocenti, 2014, 2015). In this sense, migrating heritage extends beyond diaspora heritage and broader transnational heritage frameworks by foregrounding movement, transformation, and recontextualization as central analytical concerns. While diaspora diplomacy often draws on shared historical narratives framed as stable links between source and host nations, migrating heritage highlights how cultural meaning is actively renegotiated through movement and diplomatic exchange. Positioned at the intersection of diaspora diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, this research engages both domains by examining how migrating heritage functions as a medium of transnational negotiation, symbolic diplomacy, and the articulation of diasporic and national identities through the case of the transnational transfer of the Attic Relics.

The Attic Relics, historical materials and archival records of the Korean independence movement discovered in Los Angeles in 2003 and subsequently held by and sought for repatriation by the Korean National Association Memorial Foundation, constitute migrating heritage, illustrating the processes by which heritage transcends borders, resignifies, and mediates relationships among diaspora communities, countries of origin, and receiving societies. This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive approach based on a triangulation of publicly available sources, including journalistic coverage, official press releases, and institutional promotional materials. Particular attention is given to legal documents and court decisions to provide a factual framework for the analysis. These primary materials are further enriched by reflexive insights from one author's direct professional involvement in the loan process, offering a localized perspective on institutional practices and decision-making. Through this case, the study examines how museums, states, and diasporic communities negotiate authority, belonging, and symbolic power, highlighting the need for more culturally responsive and policy-relevant approaches to diaspora engagement.

Drawing on Bhabha's (1994: 53) notion of the “third space,” a relation and hybrid cultural arena produced through negotiation and translation, migrating heritage can be understood as operating within institutional and transnational fields of intersection. Migrating heritage encompasses not only the mobility of postcolonial artifacts but also the movement of people, technologies, and disciplines that converge through transnational networks and partnerships, generating hybrid cultural spaces in which questions of social inclusion, cultural dialogue, identity, and citizenship are articulated, positioning museums as central actors in this process (Innocenti, 2014). As cultural institutions operating within this third space, museums play a visible role in rearticulating meanings through movement and cross-cultural encounter. This case foregrounds the incongruities and interpretive dissonance that emerge when migrating heritage is mobilized within diaspora diplomacy, highlighting the challenges of reconciling institutional, state, and diasporic agendas, and suggesting the need to reconceptualize the field in ways that center the cultural agency of diasporic as well as institutional actors. While grounded in the unique trajectory of the Attic Relics, these dynamics illuminate critical tensions in transnational heritage governance, where the intersection of shared historical narratives, diaspora engagement, and cultural diplomacy generates competing claims not only over ownership and authority, but over the very definition of national and diasporic belonging.

Conceptual foundation: diaspora heritage and diplomacy

Diasporic identity is constructed over time through representation, discourse, and historical positioning, an essentialized attribute fixed by territorial origin (Clifford, 1994; Hall, 1990). Defining the heritage associated with migration and diaspora remains a complex task, marked by considerable ambiguity and conceptual overlap (Dellios and Henrich, 2020; Trzeszczyńska et al., 2023). Migrant heritage refers to cultural expressions created with, by, for, or in response to individuals and communities who have migrated across borders and cultures, as well as their descendants, and it can extend across both geographic and generational boundaries (Dellios and Henrich, 2020). Diaspora heritage broadly refers to heritage associated with diaspora communities and is often examined through how it originates in the past and contributes to identity formation and negotiation in the present, emphasizing a continued sense of belonging and connection to the homeland, whereas immigrant heritage tends to emphasize memories, material culture, and practices carried from the homeland, framing heritage as a continuation of the origin culture within the host society (Dellios and Henrich, 2020).

In contemporary scholarship, diasporic and diaspora heritage are commonly understood as overlapping conceptual frameworks that foreground how cultural identity persists, circulates, and is rearticulated beyond a singular homeland. The term diasporic heritage highlights ongoing cultural practices that operate across communities and networks, pointing to the fluid and connective nature of heritage beyond fixed national boundaries (Ang, 2011; Dellios and Henrich, 2020). Trzeszczyńska et al. (2023) conceptualize diaspora heritage as a dynamic and processual formation, emphasizing its transgenerational and evolving nature and its continual reinterpretation, negotiation, and reconstruction through the lived experiences and cultural practices of immigrants and their descendants. In this context, migrating heritage embodies a complex mixture of shifts and continuities from classic identity marking heritage, describing how heritage, including objects, narratives, and traditions, travels physically or symbolically across borders and adapts to new cultural and institutional contexts (Innocenti, 2014).

Immigrant and diaspora heritage are rooted in dual contexts, as both sending and receiving countries draw upon them in constructing national identity and fostering social cohesion. Immigrant heritage has been invoked in the context of multiculturalism for political purposes, as a way of resisting assimilation and decolonization, and in response to increasing ethnic and cultural diversity within society (Ang, 2011; Dellios and Henrich, 2020). Recognition of diasporic groups has contributed to cultural pluralism, yet it often focuses on the retention of homeland memories, traditions, and customs in private spheres, marginalizing these practices from the national public sphere and reinforcing dominant ideologies of unity and homogeneity (Ang, 2011). Multiculturalism frequently functions as a means of promoting national identity, with heritage policies strategically developed to construct a consensus-based narrative by incorporating minority cultural expressions within dominant heritage frameworks (Ashworth et al., 2007). The shaping of multicultural heritage policy depends on the broader heritage framework of the receiving country. In the United States’ decentralized heritage and cultural policy environment, local governments and cultural institutions play a particularly prominent role in preserving diaspora heritage, as it increasingly intersects with sociopolitical dynamics, urban branding, and cultural politics.

Conversely, and often for similar purposes, sending countries have historically and increasingly treated emigrants as part of their national community and history. McIntyre and Gamlen (2019) find that nation-states actively reconfigure national membership based on ethnic identity and civic principles by integrating expatriate populations and including emigrants through formal policies, political strategies, and government administrations, treating them as ongoing extensions of the nation. To govern overseas populations as part of the national polity, many countries have established dedicated government structures. For example, Israel has a Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, Armenia established a Ministry of Diaspora (2008–2019), later replaced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs under the Prime Minister following the 2018 Velvet Revolution, and Ireland operates the Irish Abroad Unit within its foreign ministry. Countries such as Romania, Poland, and Lithuania employ frameworks of restorative citizenship, offering former citizens or their descendants the right to reacquire nationality, thereby reconstituting legal and symbolic connections with their diasporas, whereas states with large numbers of citizens working abroad, such as the Philippines and Nepal, focus their transnational engagement on labor migration governance, migrant worker protection, and remittance politics. In contrast, China's diaspora governance, implemented through organs such as the United Front Work Department, the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese, and the former Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, functions as an instrument of heritage diplomacy, soft power, and nation-building rather than a rights-based citizenship framework (Bowe, 2018).

Given the contested nature of migration- and diaspora-related terminology, this study employs such terms with contextual sensitivity, acknowledging their affective and cultural resonances as well as their alignment with nation-based frameworks that shape heritage discourse. Terms such as sending and receiving country or home and host are still used in this study when describing transnational heritage circulation and interactions between the Korean government and Korean American communities. In these instances, the terms serve as heuristic markers of institutional and geopolitical positioning rather than fixed national identities. Regarding the Attic Relics, this study identifies Korea as the country of origin and the United States as the country of custody, while recognizing that such terms are heuristic and cannot fully represent the multidirectional, transnational character of their migration and heritage meanings.

Literature review

Emergence of diaspora diplomacy

Diaspora diplomacy marks a shift from traditional, state-to-state foreign policy toward more networked, multiactor, and soft power-oriented engagement. Diaspora institutions often facilitate political mobilization in host countries by drawing on unifying factors such as shared ethnicity and religion (Akcapar and Aksel, 2017). However, the existing research focuses too narrowly on national-level interests and ideologies when explaining how individual states tap into diaspora resources and incorporate these groups within the nation-state framework (Gamlen, 2014). The study of diaspora institutions was initially grounded in and continues to be largely dominated by frameworks of “state-led transnationalism” (Akcapar and Aksel, 2017: 137; Gamlen, 2014: 189) or “long-distance nationalism” (Akcapar and Aksel, 2017: 137; Basch et al., 1994) although recent scholarship has shifted toward interpretations of “de-territorialization” (Akcapar and Aksel, 2017: 137) as expressions of postnational, supranational, or transnational membership. Recently, diaspora diplomacy has been increasingly instrumentalized to serve economic imperatives, which have become primary drivers for its expansion (Collins and Bekenova, 2017; Kennedy, 2020); simultaneously, cultural programs have been utilized as specific diaspora strategies to maintain these transnational links (Arkilic and To, 2024; IOM, n.d.). These state-led cultural initiatives, including cultural centers and youth outreach, remain shaped by nationalistic frameworks that prioritize fixed notions of identity (Akcapar and Aksel, 2017), as seen in the recent instrumentalization of such programs to ensure diaspora loyalty (Arkilic and To, 2024). While cultural practices, heritage, and identity lie at the heart of diaspora heritage, they have often been shaped by assumed and fixed notions of identity and remain comparatively underexamined within diplomatic processes, reinforcing the need for more inclusive approaches that recognize fluid and multiple diasporic identities and integrate cultural engagement into global development agendas. (Ho, 2011, 2020; IOM, n.d.).

In addition, while diaspora identity is framed as a form of soft power rooted in cultural identity and symbolic affiliation (IOM, n.d.), its political and cultural dynamics remain underexplored, revealing a critical gap in understanding how diasporic heritage and identity function within broader strategies of international cultural engagement. This is particularly evident in the limited attention to heritage as an active medium of diplomatic negotiation and exchange. Historically, diaspora heritage has been overlooked within cultural diplomacy frameworks because it is often reduced to a mere extension of the country of origin's political agenda. Consequently, recent scholarship calls for a more nuanced understanding of diaspora diplomacy as a space where nontraditional diplomatic actors reshape practices beyond conventional state-to-state frameworks (Ho and McConnell, 2017), while also advocating a comparative approach and greater attention to decentralized systems of global migration governance (Gamlen, 2014). This study addresses a critical gap in existing scholarship by situating diaspora diplomacy in relation to cultural diplomacy, where the cultural dimensions of identity, heritage, and transnational belonging remain insufficiently integrated into analyses of diplomatic practice, and where the relationship between top-down, state-driven approaches and bottom-up, community-based dynamics remains insufficiently theorized.

Museums and migrating heritage

Museums play a key role in representing migrant heritage, often shaped by prevailing political and cultural agendas (Glynn and Kleist, 2012). Museums, as spaces for promoting cultural diversity, have engaged with migrant heritage by accommodating the logic of diaspora and emphasizing dynamic forces of belonging and mobility to foster unity and strengthen communal bonds (Ang, 2011). With the rise of immigrant museums, scholars have examined their political roles in shaping representations of diversity, inclusion, and national identity. Ang (2011) observes that such museums in Western countries officially recognize immigrant heritage as a means to promote inclusive history, yet often do so in a highly selective and positive manner that aligns with the preferred national narrative of the host society. Smith (2017) demonstrates that immigration museums in the United States and Australia address issues of diversity and historical exclusion, while simultaneously reinforcing narratives of cosmopolitanism and assimilation at both individual and collective levels. Although museum and heritage studies have explored representation, identity, and migration, and diaspora diplomacy has been examined primarily through political and economic frameworks, these fields remain insufficiently integrated. Consequently, the role of cultural institutions as active sites of diplomatic negotiation remains conceptually overlooked and empirically unaddressed. This study brings attention to how museums function within transnational processes of diaspora diplomacy.

Parallel to these developments in receiving nations, recent years have seen a rise in emigrant heritage museums in countries of origin beyond their inclusion in national history museums. Wang (2020) examines the growth of Overseas Chinese Museums in post-Mao China, showing how local and national governments have strategically used them for political legitimation, social cohesion, economic development, and city branding, selectively integrating diaspora histories to serve contemporary interests. Compared to the more established scholarship on museums in multicultural host countries, studies on emigrant heritage museums in home countries remain underdeveloped, particularly in relation to their role in diaspora diplomacy and transnational heritage circulation. As migration- and diaspora-focused museums continue to emerge, scholarly attention is expected to expand; however, existing studies remain largely confined to single-country perspectives. While research increasingly examines the complex roles migrants play across multiple national contexts and recognizes the importance of immigrant and diaspora heritage, the role of migrating heritage as a dynamic and mediating force within diaspora diplomacy remains conceptually underdeveloped. This study situates migrating heritage at the intersection of diaspora diplomacy and cultural diplomacy to exam how heritage operates as a site of negotiation among states, institutions, and diaspora communities.

State framing overseas Koreans: policy, identity, and belonging

The history of Korean immigration to the United States can be traced back to labor migration to Hawaii between 1903 and 1910 (Yoon, 2012). While labor emigration continued, the Japanese colonial period (1910–1945) also saw political exiles migrating abroad. Although Korean migration to the United States began to rise after World War II and the Korean War, it reached its peak in the 1970s and 1980s, when the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act made the United States a major destination for Korean emigration. The political and military relationship between the two countries, as well as South Korea's economic dependence on the United States, influenced these migration patterns. Early arrivals included military families, adoptees, and students, while later waves from the 1960s onward reflected both permanent and temporary migration, shaped by changing economic conditions and immigration policies in South Korea. Immigration surged after the 1965 Immigration Act, which encouraged greater migration, and many Koreans arrived seeking educational and professional opportunities through various channels, including family sponsorship. The pace of migration slowed after the 1988 Seoul Olympics, as South Korea's economy improved, U.S. immigration policies became more restrictive, and migration destinations diversified (Yoon, 2012).

There are 7,325,143 Koreans living abroad across 193 countries, with the largest population (2,633,777) residing in the United States (MOFA, n.d.a.). Korean American communities are concentrated in major U.S. cities such as Los Angeles, New York–New Jersey, San Francisco, and the Washington, DC metropolitan area, and have more recently expanded to rapidly growing communities in cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Seattle, reflecting both the long-standing and increasingly widespread scope of Korean diaspora settlement since the mid-twentieth century. Overseas Koreans are increasingly seen as important contributors to South Korea's economy, diplomacy, and soft power. Their remittances, investments, and roles in public diplomacy and global networks have elevated their status in national policy. These demographic shifts and expanding transnational roles have contributed to the formalization of diaspora engagement policies by the South Korean government.

Still, the development of diaspora engagement policies in South Korea is a relatively recent phenomenon. These policies are grounded in the constitutional principle of ethnic nationalism, which serves as a foundational framework for defining and engaging overseas Koreans, and they have gradually expanded the legal recognition and rights of overseas Koreans (Jeong and Lee, 2025). The enactment of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (재외동포법) in 1999, which granted ethnic Koreans abroad rights such as residency, business operations, and limited real estate ownership, marked a turning point in the country's approach to diaspora engagement (Lim and Seol, 2018). There has been increased attention to the electoral participation of overseas Koreans, with overseas voting rights granted in 2009 through an amendment to the Public Official Election Act (공직선거법), although actual engagement remains limited. Historically, dual citizenship was not permitted for overseas Koreans, but a 2010 amendment to the Nationality Act (국적법) partially eased this restriction, allowing exceptions based on age or significant contributions to the nation.

These policies shaped the legal discourse on diaspora engagement, particularly in articulating the terminology and definitions applied to overseas Koreans. Socially and culturally, overseas Koreans have always been framed as part of a transnational Korean identity, emphasizing ancestral and emotional ties over formal citizenship status. Within this framework, the government of the Republic of Korea uses the term dongpo (동포/同胞), meaning brethren or people of the same ancestry, to refer to overseas Koreans. Dongpo carries transnational implications, highlighting connections among diverse overseas Korean communities, and has replaced the earlier term gyopo (교포/僑胞), which referred more narrowly to Koreans residing abroad (Song, 2014).

Although dongpo is not a new term, its official policy meaning as a legal and administrative category of overseas Koreans was formalized in the late 1990s, when South Korea began institutionalizing diaspora engagement through the 1999 Act. While framed by notions of shared national belonging, South Korea's diaspora engagement has also reflected economic and instrumental motivations, privileging regions and groups perceived to hold professional or strategic value (Lim and Seol, 2018). This utilitarian orientation reveals how state policy has often assumed, rather than critically examined, the identities and experiences of overseas Koreans, a tendency that persists even in recent frameworks (Jeong and Lee, 2025). The 2023 Framework Act on Overseas Koreans (재외동포기본법) consolidates the South Korean government's approach to diaspora policy and clarifies the definition of dongpo, encompassing Korean citizens who have resided abroad long-term or acquired permanent residency overseas, as well as individuals born with Korean nationality and their descendants who no longer hold Korean citizenship.

The United States does not typically maintain a centralized immigrant integration policy aimed at immigrant-origin communities. Instead, engagement with immigrant or diaspora communities occurs through issue-specific, locally driven, or civil society-based initiatives, reflecting a fragmented approach to diaspora governance. In that context, Korean American history and culture are addressed within broad immigration, civil rights, and multicultural policy frameworks, rather than through dedicated federal diaspora or integration policies. While there have been symbolic recognitions, such as Korean American Day, federal engagement tends to be inclusive rather than group-specific. Korean American heritage is most acknowledged within the broader framework of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in May, which is officially recognized and promoted by federal agencies. In contrast, local and state governments in areas with large Korean American populations—such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Palisades Park, New Jersey—have adopted more targeted policies. These include Korean language services, support for Korean-owned small businesses, and community outreach efforts, reflecting a more tailored engagement with Korean American communities at the municipal level. The decentralized and localized nature of the U.S. federal government's approach to diaspora communities necessitates a form of diaspora diplomacy that engages nonstate actors and nontraditional diplomatic channels, distinct from traditional public diplomacy, as it often operates outside formal state-to-state frameworks, thereby elevating the role of cultural diplomacy in shaping transnational relationships.

Attic relics as migrating heritage: From discovery to display

The Attic Relics case illustrates how South Korea's evolving frameworks of diaspora engagement and cultural diplomacy take shape in practice. The discovery and contested circulation of the Korean National Association Attic Relics reveal how state actors, diaspora communities, and museums become involved in questions of ownership, stewardship, and representation surrounding shared historical heritage. This case provides a tangible context for examining the cultural and political dimensions of diaspora diplomacy discussed above, showing how policies of engagement intersect with heritage, identity, and transnational belonging, particularly during a period when South Korea was institutionalizing its approach to diaspora engagement.

Discovery of artifacts

On August 12, 2003, during the restoration of its former headquarters, historical artifacts were discovered in the attic of the Korean National Association (KNA, 대한인국민회), including a Taegeukgi (Korean national flag), photographs, official documents, records, and educational materials, filling several boxes of items (Korean National Association Memorial Foundation, 2016). Established in San Francisco in 1909 as the Kookminhoe (국민회, National Association) and reorganized in 1910 in Los Angeles as the Daehanin Gukminhoe (대한인국민회, Korean National Association of America, KNA) through the merger of several Korean immigrant groups on the U.S. West Coast, the KNA was a crucial political organization that fought against Japan's colonial policies in Korea, consolidating regional chapters and asserting Korean national identity in exile following Japan's annexation of Korea. Ahn Chang Ho served as a spiritual and organizational architect of the KNA, transforming the organization into a unified force for the Korean independence movement (Chang, 2022). His visionary leadership and emphasis on education, civic responsibility, and democratic principles helped lay the foundation for Korea's modern nation-building efforts. It subsequently evolved into the largest Korean immigrant political organization, promoting resistance and political empowerment by uniting Korean immigrants and lobbying Allied governments. The Attic Relics consist of approximately 10,000 artifacts, totaling about 20,000 individual items, including 6336 documents, 402 records, and 360 newspaper and book items (Korean National Association Memorial Foundation, 2016). Among them are documents related to the legal support and fundraising for the trials of patriots Inhwan Jang and Myeongun Jeon, records of diplomatic and financial campaigns by the KNA Central Committee after the March 1st Independence Movement, and key official documents from the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai. Approximately one-third of the relics were severely damaged, demanding urgent conservation treatment (Korean National Association Memorial Foundation, 2016). The discovered materials have been recognized as valuable historical records that illuminate both Korean American history, which has often been marginalized in conventional American historiography, and the Korean independence movement (Agarwal and Oh, 2016).

Contested transfer

Following the discovery, the relics were temporarily stored at the United Korean Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. The Korean National Association Memorial Foundation (2016) announced that the relics would be sent to Korea for conservation treatment. Opposition to the transfer and efforts to keep the relics in Los Angeles quickly emerged as members of the Korean American community and the academic field interpreted the plan as a permanent displacement of locally rooted heritage. As the KNA building, designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument for its significance to the political and cultural history of Korean Americans, the relics were naturally regarded as integral to that legacy (Agarwal and Oh, 2016; Kim, 2016). Emphasizing their Korean American identity and history, community members asserted their responsibility to preserve the relics locally, where their “blood and sweat” (Sunday Journal, 2014) were shed, and some even described the transfer as an act of erasing history or a betrayal akin to “selling out the nation” (Sunday Journal, 2014), reflecting deep moral outrage over what they perceived as a denial of Korean American historical ownership, as also noted by Kim (2016). The Attic Relics were described as an invaluable historic inheritance from “immigrant ancestors,” (Sunday Journal, 2014) and their conservation in Los Angeles was considered a moral imperative for their “descendants” (Sunday Journal, 2014). UCLA anthropologist Kyeyoung Park underscored the importance of preserving the relics within the community to address the persistent lack of awareness about Korean American history, and community member Tom Byun similarly emphasized that the archive forms an integral part of American history (Kim, 2016). Others within the Korean American community, along with historians and officials in Korea, recognized the potential value of transferring the materials to Independence Hall, where they could be preserved alongside other contemporaneous archives of the Korean independence movement.

Court decisions

On November 12, 2014, four individuals from the Korean American community filed a civil lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court opposing the transfer of the Korean National Association (KNA) artifacts to South Korea. The lawsuit was filed against the Korean National Association Memorial Foundation and the United Korean Presbyterian Church of Los Angeles, who had approved the transfer. The church had purchased the building in 1978 under a stewardship agreement to preserve it as a historic monument of the Koreans in America and to ensure its public accessibility (Agarwal and Oh, 2016). The controversy raised questions about the protection, accessibility, and rightful ownership of the relics, sparking public debate and legal action that continued until 2016. In addition, the attempted transfer also appears to have contravened the 2003 California court ruling (Case No. C-297-554), which strictly prohibited the church from demolishing, selling, leasing, transferring, or relocating the Korean National Association Hall or its artifacts until 2083, in recognition of their historical significance. On January 15, 2016, one year and two months after the lawsuit was filed, the Korean National Association Memorial Foundation and the plaintiffs reached a three-point settlement through arbitration in Los Angeles. First, the artifacts would be scanned at USC and transferred to Korea on a conditional loan. Second, each side would appoint two representatives to form a joint four-member working committee. Third, once a dedicated storage facility is established in Los Angeles, the artifacts would be returned. The inventory of the artifacts was created by the four-member committee in collaboration with Dr Ken Klein, Director of the East Asian Library at USC, and Joy Kim, Curator of the Korean Heritage Library. The relics were subsequently transferred to the Independence Hall of Korea on a conditional loan in 2019.

Exhibition of the relics in Korea

To commemorate the 75th anniversary of Liberation Day, the Independence Hall of Korea held a special exhibition from August 15 to November 22, 2020, showcasing eighty-one historically significant items from the KNA Attic Relics for the first time in Korea. The exhibition aimed to highlight the contributions of early Korean immigrants in the United States who, despite harsh labor conditions under Japanese colonial rule, played a leading role in Korea's independence movement (Independence Hall of Korea, 2020; Kim, 2020). The Independence Hall explained that the transfer was made for the systematic preservation and utilization of the artifacts, and explicitly noted that the materials were “loaned by the Korean American community in Los Angeles” (Independence Hall of Korea, 2020). Featured items included the Charter of the Korean National Association, which outlined the organization's founding principles and structure; a version of the March 1st Declaration of Independence produced by the KNA; and a Taegukgi discovered among the artifacts. Timely materials were also presented, such as reports on Korean community events commemorating Gukchi-il (National Humiliation Day) in Mexico, a photo plate from the founding ceremony of the Korean Liberation Army, and remittance notices from Korean communities in New York supporting the Liberation Army, marking the 110th anniversary of Korea's annexation in 1910 and the 80th anniversary of the Liberation Army's founding.

Exhibition of the relics in Los Angeles

After the exhibit in Korea, selected artifacts were sent to Los Angeles for the exhibit commemorating inauguration of the newly renovated and renamed exhibit space, Korean National Association Exhibition Hall. All four galleries were fully renovated with updated exhibit designs and enhanced interpretive strategies, including bilingual interpretation in Korean and English, to improve content delivery and accessibility. The promotion and coverage of the exhibit, including the organization and speeches at the opening ceremony raised questions about the artifacts’ loan status. While the Korean National Association Memorial Foundation framed the event as a ceremony celebrating the opening of a newly renovated exhibition hall, the Independence Hall of Korea described it as an Overseas Special Exhibition opening. In press materials distributed to domestic media, the Independence Hall stated that the exhibition aimed to honor the history of Korean independence movements in the United States and offer the local community an opportunity to reflect on this legacy. However, it also expressed gratitude for the “transfer” (Sunday Journal, 2021) of the relics, thereby obscuring their conditional loan status by using the term “donation” (Sunday Journal, 2021). The KNA Memorial Foundation further contributed to the misrepresentation of the artifacts’ status, not only during the opening event but also in its commemorative publication, by obscuring the loan status of the artifacts. The publication described the Attic Relics as “transferred” (Sunday Journal, 2021) to the Independence Hall of Korea and wrongly claimed that the Los Angeles County court had “ordered the transfer” (Sunday Journal, 2021), without mentioning that it was a conditional loan. In addition, the South Korean government's support in enabling the exhibit and funding the gallery renovations was acknowledged with appreciation; however, the emphasis on this generosity subtly shifted attention away from the fact that the artifacts themselves belong to the KNA Memorial Foundation and originated from the Korean American community (Sunday Journal, 2021). The continuing sensitivity surrounding the exhibits demonstrates that tensions over ownership, interpretation, and the meaning of diaspora heritage remain unresolved.

Migrating heritage in diaspora contexts: limits of institutional stewardship

The negotiation of the Attic Relics unfolded largely outside the KNA itself, which, despite being the historical custodian of the materials, became marginalized in decision-making processes. The Attic Relics case materializes the third space of heritage governance, shaped by interactions among state, diaspora, and academic institutions. This asymmetry, evidenced by the MPVA's observant stance and the Independence Hall's structural constraints, underscores a dynamic in which formal authority remains concentrated within institutional domains, while diaspora participation was active but structurally limited. Institutions were risk-averse and avoidant, prioritizing mandate compliance and political nonescalation rather than proactive resolution. Within this hybrid arena, where the nationalist logic of the MPVA, the custodial caution of the Independence Hall, and the scholarly advocacy of USC intersect, stewardship was negotiated through competing moral frameworks of preservation, ownership, and responsibility, shaped by institutional mandates, communal memory, and the broader transnational political sensitivities surrounding the relics. Rather than functioning as sites of coordinated cultural diplomacy, institutions engaged in fragmented and improvised forms of mediation, often absorbing visibility and responsibility without corresponding authority or capacity. This space does not erase institutional hierarchies but reconfigures them, producing a model of migrating heritage governance in which accountability is diffuse, custodianship is unevenly shared, and diplomatic labor remains secondary to unresolved tensions embedded in transnational heritage movement.

The ministry of patriots and veterans affairs

Established under the Military Relief Administration Establishment Act of 1961 and elevated to ministry status in 2023, South Korea's Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (MPVA) is mandated to provide comprehensive veterans’ services, ranging from medical support to burial benefits, to uphold national identity and intergenerational remembrance (MPVA, n.d.). Within this mandate, the MPVA oversees national commemoration and memorial affairs and manages the operations of national cemeteries and historical preservation activities. Preserving the legacy of Korea's independence movements, many of which developed abroad, constitutes an important area of the ministry's work, and its overseas activities have included support for diaspora organizations and the acquisition of historic properties, such as the former headquarters of Heungsadan (Young Korean Academy), a key site of early twentieth-century independence activism in the United States that was saved from demolition (Yoon, 2023). It further supports these efforts by overseeing museums and memorial institutions, such as the Korean Provisional Government Memorial Hall and the Independence Hall of Korea.

The Korean National Association (KNA) received annual financial support from the ministry, which led to speculation that the transfer of the Attic Relics was directed by the ministry as part of its preservation strategy. However, the preexisting relationship between the two appears instead to have naturally encouraged consultation regarding the preservation and potential relocation of the Attic Relics. In this context, the ministry's support for the KNA should be understood as part of its broader efforts to recognize and honor overseas organizations connected to Korea's independence history, rather than as direct intervention in curatorial decision-making. When the transfer of the Attic Relics became controversial, the ministry sought to distance itself from the process and adopted a largely observant stance. While intended to avoid escalation, the ministry's passive approach constrained timely intervention and contributed to unresolved tensions surrounding the transfer.

Although the MPVA did not explicitly frame its involvement in diplomatic terms, its restrained and observant approach can be read as a form of diplomatic risk management, aimed at avoiding political escalation while maintaining symbolic authority over independence heritage. By maintaining an observant stance during the controversy and avoiding direct intervention in institutional or legal disputes, the ministry sought to manage political sensitivities across state, diaspora, and academic domains. This restraint reflected an approach of diplomatic risk avoidance, intended to signal respect for institutional autonomy abroad while retaining symbolic authority over independence heritage. However, this nonintervention did not resolve underlying tensions and left key issues surrounding stewardship and responsibility largely unaddressed.

Independence Hall of Korea

The Independence Hall of Korea was established under the Independence Hall of Korea Act (Law No. 3820, enacted on May 9, 1986), and it officially opened on August 15, 1987, Korea's Independence Day. Constituted as a law corporation, it functions as a state-subsidized institution with substantial autonomy through a board-based governance structure. Initially under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST), the Independence Hall was transferred to the MPVA in 2005. The Independence Hall continues to exercise significant independence in research and in developing exhibitions and educational programs.

Although functioning as an autonomous legal and administrative entity, the Independence Hall proceeded with considerable caution and aligned its actions closely with the ministry's position, engaging substantively only after the court decision. Prior to the court decision, the Hall's involvement was minimal and reactive, involving limited research activities undertaken at the request of the KNA but without substantive institutional action. Despite questions about whether the MPVA exercised administrative or bureaucratic influence over the Independence Hall's actions, there is no indication of direct interference or explicit direction by the ministry. Following legal advice, the museum consistently referred to the arrangement as a loan rather than a transfer in all official communications, emphasizing that the relics remained the property of the KNA. This overall restrained positioning reflected an attempt to navigate legal authority, political sensitivity, and public accountability but did not resolve underlying tensions and offered only limited mediation among competing stakeholders.

As the controversy unfolded, the museum became a highly visible actor tasked with navigating the dispute and shaping heritage narratives, even though its role in determining the course of action remained structurally constrained. In implementing the court decision, the Independence Hall was required to engage with stakeholders in the United States without the benefit of clear policy frameworks or political guidance, while its involvement remained limited to collections management and curatorial responsibilities. While the Hall engaged in limited forms of cultural diplomacy during the loan process, its role shifted following receipt of the loan toward more active public-facing engagement through exhibition-making and presentation. In practice, the Hall functioned as a buffering institution that absorbed public visibility and responsibility while operating within narrowly constrained authority, rather than as an effective diplomatic mediator; the cultural-diplomatic role it assumed was neither well planned nor institutionally supported.

University of southern California

Outside the Korean diaspora community in the United States, the Attic Relics attracted limited governmental or public attention; however, the USC Korean Heritage Library took an active role in researching and conserving the relics. It provided institutional support for technical consultation and administrative support when the Attic Relics were discovered and proposed forming a consortium with Korean Studies programs at USC, UCLA, and UC Riverside to assist with on-site preservation in collaboration with the Korean American community (Sunday Journal, 2014). USC has a history of preserving the heritage of the Korean independence movement and the Korean American diaspora community. The Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Family Home, originally built in the 1920s, was acquired by USC in 1965 and relocated to its current location on campus in 2004 to protect it from the campus redevelopment plan. The house has served as the Korean Studies Institute after its restoration and designated as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 2013 (Los Angeles Historic Resources Inventory, 2024).

Throughout the disputes over the relics, USC acted as an institutional advocate for Korean American community members who supported retaining the items in Los Angeles, a position grounded in scholarly understandings of diaspora heritage that recognize the diaspora community as the cultural home of such materials. Its intentions and academic interest were, at times, misinterpreted as an attempt to assert ownership (Sunday Journal, 2014). As Kenneth Klein, then Director of the USC East Asian Library, observed, the conflict was shaped by a “lack of trust on all sides” (Agarwal and Oh, 2016) and ongoing miscommunication, which contributed to prolonged tensions. Following the court order, USC undertook the digitization of the relics to ensure their accessibility in the United States, regarding this approach as an acceptable compromise for scholarly and educational purposes (Agarwal and Oh, 2016).

Aware of the Korean government's sensitivity toward emigrant communities within its nationalist framework, and attentive to the cultural autonomy of the Korean diaspora, the institution proceeded cautiously. USC did not present itself as a diplomatic actor; however, its role in the dispute functioned as a form of academic and cultural diplomacy. By advocating for the Korean American community's relationship to the relics, USC's mediation among the Korean state, diaspora stakeholders, and U.S. legal constraints effectively operationalized the third space of heritage governance, translating communal claims into an institutional framework. Its actions facilitated cross-border negotiation over heritage stewardship while avoiding claims of ownership or sovereign authority. In this capacity, USC operated as a legitimizing intermediary, translating diaspora-based heritage claims into scholarly and institutional terms acceptable within international and legal frameworks.

Heritage, ownership, and the fractures of diaspora diplomacy

South Korea's engagement with its overseas population extends beyond migration management; it reflects a broader state project of defining national belonging across borders. Since the late twentieth century, the Korean government has conceptualized overseas Koreans not merely as emigrants, but as integral members of a transnational Korean community whose cultural, economic, and symbolic contributions reinforce the nation's global standing (Jeong and Lee, 2025; Song, 2014). This understanding, anchored in ethnic nationalism, has shaped modern diaspora policies and continues to influence how heritage and identity are represented in transnational contexts (Jeong and Lee, 2025; Song, 2014). The institutional adoption of dongpo framed overseas Koreans as moral and cultural extensions of the nation, transforming ethnic kinship into a policy tool that linked heritage, belonging, and soft power, as reflected in the 1999 Act and the 2023 Framework Act on Overseas Koreans. Within this framework, South Korea's approach to diaspora diplomacy aligns more closely with “diplomacy through diaspora” (Brinkerhoff, 2019: 56; Ho and McConnell, 2017), where the state engages diasporic communities as instruments for advancing national objectives, rather than recognizing diaspora communities as independent diplomatic actors. This orientation tends to emphasize ethnic affiliation and cultural unity while giving limited attention to the autonomous heritage practices and lived experiences of diaspora communities.

Within this evolving landscape, the case of the Attic Relics highlights the need to reconsider Korea's approach to diaspora diplomacy—not merely in terms of outreach or policy mechanisms, but in recognizing whom the state engages with and how heritage mediates these relationships across national and institutional boundaries. The Attic Relics case thus points to a recurring gap between top-down policy frameworks and bottom-up practices of cultural continuity and reinterpretation. It reveals the fundamental shortcomings of South Korea's diaspora diplomacy, which has often prioritized political and economic agendas and imposed fixed notions of identity over community agency. It also contradicts its own goals of multiculturalism and global outreach as well as realities of overseas Korean's hybrid, transnational identities. Diaspora identity, shaped by both homeland and host-society experiences, enables diasporans to embody transnational connections and foster people-to-people understanding—a core aspect of public diplomacy (Brinkerhoff, 2019: 56). In this sense, diasporans act as agents of “diplomacy by diaspora,” a bottom-up, agency-oriented form of engagement that complements and sometimes challenges state-driven “diplomacy through diaspora” (Brinkerhoff, 2019: 56; Ho and McConnell, 2017). Recognizing diasporic heritage, however, helps reframe diaspora diplomacy not merely as a political instrument but as a socially and relationally embedded process—one centered on the negotiation of identity, belonging, and transnational relationships.

The question of heritage ownership further complicates the practice of diaspora diplomacy, revealing the legal and moral tensions underlying transnational cultural stewardship. Ownership of cultural heritage depends on how nations conceptualize and define cultural property—an issue made more complex in diasporic contexts, where heritage crosses national boundaries and is shaped by multiple cultural, legal, and political frameworks. In cultural diplomacy, ownership claims have typically centered on the recovery of looted tangible cultural heritage, which remains rare in diasporic settings. As migrants have carried and transmitted cultural traditions, beliefs, and languages across borders, studies of diasporic heritage have focused largely on living cultural expressions. With both homelands and host countries advancing multicultural and ethnic narratives, the heritage of diasporic communities is often assumed to belong to the homeland, leading to tensions when states assert ownership. This dynamic is evident in UNESCO inscriptions, where intangible heritage linked to diaspora communities is frequently claimed, safeguarded, and promoted by countries of origin through national heritage policies (Aykan, 2016; Lee, 2022).

This examination also demonstrates how the absence of sustained interagency coordination highlights the importance of collaboration in the practice of diaspora diplomacy. As South Korea's diaspora policy has become more formalized and expansive, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) plays a central role in implementing engagement initiatives, supporting overseas Koreans in maintaining a sense of national identity. The MOFA oversees the Committee on Policies for Overseas Koreans (재외동포정책위원회), the Overseas Koreans Agency (재외동포청), and the Overseas Koreans Cooperation Center (재외동포협력센터), coordinating interagency policies and programs related to diaspora engagement (MOFA, n.d.b.). The Attic Relics episode suggests, however, that formal coordination mechanisms alone may be limited in moments of controversy and miscommunication. During the loan negotiations, the Korean Consulate General in Los Angeles played a mediating role between national institutions and diaspora stakeholders, underscoring how diaspora diplomacy often relies on the relational and communicative capacities of diplomatic missions rather than on clearly articulated interagency protocols.

The case of the Attic Relics is unique in that it makes visible the typically obscured negotiations over the ownership of diaspora heritage, where such claims are often assumed rather than contested, and rarely observable in tangible form. The loan of the Attic Relics represents a symbolic repatriation to Korea despite of its loan form. Their relocation serves not only to reconnect the homeland with its diasporic heritage but also to assert national ownership over a transnational past. In this way, the transfer functions as a cultural and political act of return, reflecting broader dynamics of cultural diplomacy and postcolonial memory, even in the absence of a conventional origin-based claim. Moreover, a loan arrangement has also been used as a form of repatriation, as seen in the 2011 return of the Uigwe, royal ritual records of the Joseon Dynasty dating from the 1600s to the 1900s, from France to Korea. Therefore, while the transfer of the relics was officially framed as a loan, the indefinite timeline tied to meeting conservation requirements, which pose substantial challenges for a small nonprofit museum, has effectively rendered the case a de facto permanent return to Korea.

Serving as the custodian of the Attic Relics has become a demanding responsibility for Independence Hall with respect to collections management and cultural diplomacy, facing legal and ethical challenges due to the ambiguous nature of the loan agreement that followed the court ruling. Old loans or indefinite loans are considered especially problematic for museums because the borrower remains legally and ethically responsible for the care of the loaned objects, and because the lender's intent or original terms of custody may fade or become misinterpreted over time, they can create long-term legal, ethical, and practical risks for the institution (Malaro and DeAngelis, 2012). Old loans represent a critical area of collections management that requires resolution through due diligence (Malaro and DeAngelis, 2012). The original loan conditions, premised on the future availability of an adequately equipped Korean American museum and a formal request from the initial committee members, have become unrealistic and unlikely to be fulfilled in the foreseeable future. Without a clear path forward, the relics risk becoming an indefinite loan, an unresolved issue that may continue to raise sensitivities in both museum ethics and diaspora diplomacy.

Under these circumstances, the return of the Attic Relics to Los Angeles should be pursued within the framework of diaspora diplomacy, where due diligence is essential not only for museological practice but also for sustaining trust and engagement with diaspora communities. In this case, the primary risk lies in jeopardizing the relationship with the Korean diaspora community, which is not only a key constituency for the museum's institutional mission but also a focal audience within the broader framework of the nation's diaspora engagement. There has been long-standing mistrust within the Korean diaspora community toward the South Korean government, specifically regarding its role in preserving the early history of Korean immigration to the United States. This sentiment became particularly evident throughout this case. For example, during the loan process, dissatisfaction and tension were palpable, with some participants expressing concerns that the Korean government was attempting to claim ownership of Korean American historical artifacts—at times using strong language, with participants stating that the government had “always” tried to “steal” (author's field observation) them. These observations draw on the author's firsthand experience during the loan process. Independence Hall, as a national museum tasked with both museological responsibilities and diplomatic duties, faces a significant dilemma: balancing the ethical stewardship of diaspora heritage with the political sensitivities of international and community relations, while being constrained by the terms of the loan agreement.

Sensitive to the political environment, Independence Hall remained cautious, while the MPVA was even more restrained, choosing complete noninvolvement to avoid controversy and stepping in only minimally and belatedly after the court's decision. The Independence Hall of Korea had previously conducted only a research visit, but it resumed contact with the four-member committee in the fall of 2018, signed a loan agreement with the steering committee in August 2019, and officially received the Attic Relics on loan in November of the same year. Amid underlying tensions, the Korean Consulate General in Los Angeles facilitated and moderated the negotiation process. Still, diaspora diplomacy operated less through deliberate cultural outreach than through existing bureaucratic and museological frameworks that governed heritage custody and representation. Given its mission and scope of work, the MPVA has provided such support in related contexts, as demonstrated in its assistance to the KNA, and Korean American communities often seek the ministry's help in preserving historic properties connected to the independence movement. The case illustrates how even limited or cautious forms of state involvement can shape the governance of diaspora heritage, underscoring the need for more dialogic and trust-based approaches within Korea's evolving framework of diaspora diplomacy.

Still, the ministry's bureaucratic structure and lack of flexibility have not only been perceived as obstacles to collaboration and communication, but also as a sign of indifference, at times resulting in the loss of historic property. For example, the request made to the MPVA and the Korean Consulate General in Los Angeles to help preserve the Dongjihoe Hall—a building used by the Korean Comrades Association (대한인동지회)—was declined due to a three-party ownership dispute within the Korean American community at the time, with the Korean government citing its policy against supporting organizations involved in internal conflicts (Noh, 2023). Established in July 1921 in Honolulu, Hawaii, the association was a key independence activist organization. The first president of South Korea, Syngman Rhee, served as the founding and lifelong president of the association. After its relocation to Los Angeles in 1929, the building was used for its continued independence movement and education for Korean Americans but was destroyed in 2013 for the construction of a USC dormitory. A cautious and inflexible approach guided by standardized rules may struggle to accommodate the diverse and evolving realities of diaspora communities. When policies appear detached or unresponsive to the needs and dynamics of these communities, the result can be the loss of collective heritage—heritage that carries deep meaning for both Korea and the Korean diaspora community.

A more inclusive and coordinated approach among agencies such as the MPVA, MOFA, and cultural institutions would not only strengthen trust but also enable the Korean government to engage its diaspora as active partners—co-stewards of heritage and identity—rather than passive recipients of policy. To foster more sustainable relationships with overseas communities, interagency collaboration must extend beyond administrative coordination to genuine dialogue and partnership. The 2023 Act, in fact, reinforces the importance of coordinated efforts across government agencies for effective diaspora engagement. Ultimately, diaspora engagement and diplomacy require openness to diverse perspectives, shared decision-making, and recognition of community expertise as a form of cultural diplomacy in itself.

Conclusion

As cultural meanings are negotiated and reconfigured across transnational contexts, diaspora heritage extends beyond the heritage of migrants and is more fully conceptualized through the complex processes of migrating heritage. Recent developments in diaspora engagement and diplomacy have largely emphasized political and economic objectives grounded in national identity, often leaving the cultural and heritage dimensions of diaspora relations peripheral. As a result, despite expanding policy initiatives and programs, the roles of diaspora heritage and migrating heritage remain insufficiently theorized within diaspora diplomacy. This gap has practical implications for diaspora engagement policies, which lack mechanisms to account for the movement, reinterpretation, and shared stewardship of heritage across borders.

The Attic Relics, as an instance of migrating heritage, illuminate how heritage circulates through decentralized and fragmented networks that encompass diaspora communities, local organizations, religious institutions, universities, and media, while simultaneously contending with the hierarchical frameworks of home-country institutions. In this process, actors including community leaders, government agencies, and museums have navigated ambiguous mandates and overlapping responsibilities regarding ownership, stewardship, and national representation. Museums, in particular, have operated as visible agents of migrating heritage: they facilitate cross-border movements of cultural materials through acquisition, loan, or repatriation; reinterpret meaning through curatorial and interpretive practices; and mediate authority and representation among diverse stakeholders. The analysis demonstrates that diaspora diplomacy often operates through fragmented and indirect institutional practices, including forms of restraint or nonintervention, which may diverge from the stated objectives of diaspora engagement policies. This research highlights the need for clearer inter-institutional coordination, particularly across multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders with competing claims. It further underscores the importance of moving museum stewardship beyond custodial roles toward more collaborative and transnational approaches that recognize diasporic actors as active partners in decision-making.

Through cultural practices, historical memory, and collective stewardship, diasporic communities sustain transnational connections that challenge the nation-centered logic of heritage governance. Recognizing these dynamics suggests the value of more inclusive and dialogic forms of diaspora engagement, in which heritage is understood not as a possession of the nation-state but as a shared and negotiated space of identity, responsibility, and diplomacy. More broadly, this study underscores the importance of integrating cultural and heritage considerations into diaspora diplomacy strategies, aligning policy frameworks with the lived realities of transnational communities and the evolving meanings of heritage in motion.