Common Conviction

The declaration of martial law on Dec. 2 by South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, even as it might appear amateurish and headed to reversal by the legislature – opposed by Yoon’s own party chief, and citing no apparent emergency – nonetheless poses a danger for America.

South Korea has had freely elected government, with changes of party and peaceful transitions of power, for over 30 years now.   No longer just another regime on our side against a Communist foe, the nation has become prosperous, a developed economy, with contagiously vibrant popular culture, sophisticated technology, and, above all, democracy and rule of law.  As such, it has showcased the good effect of America’s influence in the world. 

International opposition to our influence has come, mostly, from communist China, Putin’s Russia, and the theocratic regime of Iran.  All have drawn our sanctions for starting war and quashing political liberties.  Sanctions have also addressed their cheating on international agreements in economic as well as strategic arenas, but at bottom, we are adversaries because they are enemies of freedom.

In our clumsiness, we have managed to give our adversaries a rationale to oppose us, claiming that we seek only to keep our power and influence, that their governance is the business of their regimes posing as representatives of their people, and that our economic pressures do not impede their oppressions but serve our vested interests.  They have gained followers among other autocrats, but also among some who feel slighted by some of our practices and policies.

The best, unspoken counter to any arguments of dictators is the freedom of other nations whom we count our friends.  In particular, the newer democracies, of which South Korea is particularly prominent, show the appeal of our own democracy and the benefit of our global power. 

American policy has focused in recent years on “outcompeting” China and other great powers with too little emphasis on the deepest reason that we are not friends.  We do not compete with China because they are rising economically or because of some zero sum geopolitics, we do so because they exemplify and condone dictatorship and quash liberties where they can, notably in Hong Kong.  We have not continued to support South Korea just because it makes cellphones, and not just because North Korea rattles nuclear sabers.  We can support and espouse their independence wholeheartedly because they have been a democracy and open civil society, where people explore their life choices in freedom. 

Of course, as democracies have undergone the turmoil of populism, economic pressures, disruptions from technology and social change, the eternal question has kept re-raising itself.  Can free societies stay disciplined enough to protect themselves, provide for real needs, and yet preserve their freedoms?  Or, as the authoritarians would say, are our electoral regimes mere shams for the real powers in our societies?   Is “democracy” no more than cover for the real life struggles of power and wealth, and don’t people need authority to keep order? 

South Korea’s self-disruption of its progress in freedom gives impetus to the autocrats’ argument.  Our democracies now have one more case of self-contradiction to overcome.  Even if Yoon’s initiative is blocked, can South Korea re-establish a sense of democratic stability?  Can any democracy keep that spirit alive and growing in the years to come?  Our case against China and other dictatorships demands an affirmative answer.  Our own existence, based on the very idea of personal rights as sovereign interest, needs it, in Korea and everywhere else. America has no real say on internal affairs in South Korea, but we do need to make clear, to the world and to ourselves, that our true, bottom line, first interest is in freedom and democracy. Democracy does not allow state power to be used simply to cow political rivals. Opposition to Yoon’s declaration is in order. Even more so is clarity, that our support for South Korea, in the past and going forward, is based on democracy.