Kim and Korean Change

PRESIDENT CARTER would have us believe his foreign policy is at least partly predicated on support of human rights. But American reaction to the sentencing to death of prominent dissident Kim Dae Jung--who nearly became head of state in the last democratic elections held in South Korea--indicates that those who believe in realpolitik are prevailing at the expense of those who feel there can be at least a semblance of morality in U.S. foreign policy.

That it requires a "celebrity" dissident like Kim to bring South Korea's atrocities to our attention is sad enough in itself. The problem does not begin with Kim, nor will it end unless the U.S. decides to get on the side of democratic change in South Korea, by publicizing dissidents' claims and working through international channels to boost progressive elements.

Until now, the pattern has proved sadly familiar: muted threats unsupported by effective action. Accordingly, Carter should no longer allow convenience to dictate his responses. He should pressure the regime to commute Kim's and others' sentences, free the universities, and encourage the people to decide for themselves the form of government they want--at the threat, serious and not conjectural, of withdrawal of military and economic aid.

It is not surprising that South Korea's military dictatorship has tried to clamp down on democratic forces in an effort to consolidate its grip. Nor is it surprising that the regime refuses to cleave to democratic principles, particularly when the U.S. does nothing more than whimper. It is time, then, for Carter to surprise everyone by sticking to his pledge to support human rights and to decry violators of democratic precepts. Given that South Korea is a "strategic ally" and given the investment the U.S. has sunk there, it is as obvious a place as any to start.