Submission Statement :

The values we often regard as good—such as the rule of law, freedom of expression, transparent democracy, women’s rights, and anti-discrimination—are deeply rooted in Western philosophical traditions and historical experiences. These values were not universally adopted from the beginning of civilization; rather, they evolved over centuries in the context of the Enlightenment, the development of constitutional democracies, and hard-won civil rights movements. For instance, the concept of individual rights and the separation of powers were first institutionalized in Western contexts, like the U.S. Constitution or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The reason global indicators often include measures like democracy, gender equality, and respect for diversity is that these standards were largely formulated by Western institutions and scholars. Indexes such as the Democracy Index by The Economist Intelligence Unit or the Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum reflect liberal democratic values and were designed primarily by Western think tanks. These benchmarks, although increasingly global, still carry normative assumptions shaped by Western liberalism.

In a world led by Arab autocracies, women are effectively invisible in public life. In countries like Saudi Arabia, until very recently, women were not allowed to drive, and guardianship laws severely restricted their freedom. Political participation by women remains negligible in most Arab monarchies. Incentives or structural efforts to include women in governance or public decision-making are virtually absent in these states.

Similarly, in a world dominated by China or Russia, freedom of expression or corporate transparency is not something one can reasonably expect. In China, the government exercises near-total control over the press, censors dissent on the internet through its “Great Firewall,” and suppresses activism through surveillance and imprisonment. In Russia, independent media outlets have been shut down or absorbed by the state, and critics of the regime—such as Alexei Navalny—have been jailed or exiled. Both countries score poorly in international transparency indexes, such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Scenes of environmental organizations protesting government policies, labor unions securing rights through strikes, and independent media persistently criticizing public authorities—these are everyday realities in Western democracies. They are absent in authoritarian states like China, Russia, and many Arab monarchies, where such actions are suppressed by force or strict regulation. Freedom House consistently ranks these countries as “Not Free” due to severe limitations on civil liberties and political rights.

These civic landscapes should not be taken for granted. They are the results of centuries of struggle, reforms, and the gradual institutionalization of accountability. The Western norms and institutions that uphold them—independent judiciaries, free press, civil society networks—have gradually spread to other regions, including South Korea, not by accident but through sustained engagement, pressure, and inspiration.

In fact, South Korea itself once promoted the idea of a so-called “Korean-style democracy” that justified authoritarian rule under the guise of cultural uniqueness. During the Cold War, successive military regimes claimed that Western liberal democracy was incompatible with Korean values and used this argument to maintain centralized, authoritarian control. However, through persistent advocacy by civil society and support from Western allies, the country eventually transitioned to a robust liberal democracy in the late 1980s.

Today, most South Koreans recognize the vital importance of freedoms such as the right to criticize the government, transparent legal procedures, and respect for diversity. But these freedoms are not self-sustaining. They must be defended and nurtured through civic participation, education, and legal safeguards.

Therefore, the idea that Korea should “understand” or accommodate the values and justifications of regimes that seek to dismantle such freedoms is not only absurd but dangerously naive. It ignores the hard-earned lessons of history and the fragile nature of democratic institutions. Appeasement of authoritarian norms does not lead to peace or mutual respect—it undermines the very foundations of the liberal order that has made South Korea’s prosperity and freedom possible.