On April 10, 2026, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung sparked controversy by sharing a video on social media that compared the wartime killings to the Holocaust and claimed that Israeli forces had tortured and thrown a Palestinian from a roof.
Because the incident had taken place in 2024, Lee’s intervention seemed oddly timed, disconnected from immediate Korean national interests.
The contrast became clearer the next month.
On May 20, after Israeli forces arrested South Korean activists aboard a Gaza-bound flotilla, Lee reacted within hours.
In a meeting of the television cabinet, he publicly questioned the legality of Israel’s actionscalled for the review of an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu and stated that “under no circumstances can international humanitarian law be violated; human dignity must be upheld as an absolute and primary value.”
After the speech, the presidential office reinforced this attitudedeclaring that “the security and sovereignty of our citizens are primary and are the very reason for the existence of the state and government”.
Seoul’s selective humanitarianism
The point is not that Seoul was quick to intervene on behalf of South Korean citizens abroad, but that the principle appears to be applied inconsistently.
In December last year, Lee was asked by a foreign reporter about South Korean citizens arrested in North Korea. His answer was remarkably casual: He said he was hearing about the matter for the first time and would have to look into it.
The presidential office confirmed The next day, six South Koreans were held by Pyongyang from 2013-2016 on espionage and other charges.
To date, there has been little public indication that the detainees have been released or that Seoul has made their release a consistent priority.
The Chosun Ilbo editorial board was captured contradictions in a nutshell on May 22, 2026: “One cannot help but wonder if this principle is being applied equally to our citizens held in North Korea.”
South Koreans arrested by an ally while participating in political activism received immediate presidential attention in a televised cabinet meeting. South Koreans held in North Korea have not even mounted a visible public campaign for their release.
Beijing Red Line
Seoul’s double standard reflects a broader movement across the democratic world where human rights are increasingly treated not as a consistent principle of foreign policy but as a negotiable political instrument.
The implications become clearer when authoritarian regimes themselves identify what they fear most.
Ahead of the Trump-Xi summit, the Chinese Embassy in Washington published what he called the “four red lines” in US-China relations: Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China’s political system and China’s development rights.
Most comments focused on Taiwan. But the most revealing inclusion was “democracy and human rights”. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party has publicly acknowledged that the ongoing crackdown on human rights threatens the security of the regime itself.
Repression as security of the regime
Human rights are of strategic importance not only because repression is immoral, but because authoritarian regimes themselves treat information control as essential to regime survival.
I have previously argued in the Asia Times – at February 2025 and again in April 2026 – that authoritarian repression should be understood not simply as a moral issue, but as part of the regime’s security architecture.
China is not North Korea. But under Xi Jinping, slowing economic growth, demographic decline and political centralization have increased Beijing’s reliance on coercive social control.
The return of the “wolf warrior” in Chinese diplomacy and the recurring crises over Taiwan seem increasingly linked to those domestic pressures rather than entirely separate from them.
To his credit, Donald Trump reportedly arrived in Beijing prepared for it raise the issues of imprisoned Hong Kong media figure Jimmy Lai and Christian pastor Ezra Jin.
These cases matter. But Beijing has historically treated such disputes as manageable irritants rather than a sustained pressure on the regime’s legitimacy.
What the Chinese leadership fears is something broader and more enduring: a consistent American stance that treats human rights conditions within China as a permanent structural issue in the bilateral relationship rather than a bargaining chip to be traded.
HRNK paradox
The consequences of this movement are increasingly borne by the institutions that make serious human rights policies possible in the first place.
A UN accredited NGOThe Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) has long been one of the main authorities documenting North Korea’s crimes against humanity.
Her analysis of satellite images of prison camps and mapping of the regime’s information environment are cited by AND, US Department of State and governments throughout the democratic world.
However, on December 1, 2025, HRNK issued a extraordinary public appeal. “Devalued by the US government under the previous and current US administration, HRNK is facing an existential crisis,” the organization warned.
With funding for its satellite imaging work disappearing in March 2023, HRNK made it clear that, without immediate outside support, it would be forced to close.
Satellite documentation of prison camps is not symbolic activism. It creates the evidence base for sanctions, reinforces deterrence narratives, and preserves the factual record on which any future accountability process would depend.
Allowing the HRNK to collapse would represent a self-inflicted strategic mistake by the United States.
Expanding toolkit
At the same time, the technological tools for penetrating closed regimes are evolving rapidly.
North Korean defector groups have long used balloons to send outside information to the North, while the HRNK has relied heavily on satellite analysis.
Advances in low-cost drone technology are also expanding the range of possible information penetration methods available to activists and intelligence services.
Unlike balloons or satellites, drones combine mobility, persistence and real-time observation. They can hand over SD cards containing outside information, they can document prison facilities, and they can expose elite corruption in ways that traditional censorship tries to curb.
What regimes fear
like HRNK President Greg Scarlatoiu explainedthe strategic value of outside information lies not only in exposing the North Koreans to the outside world, but also in revealing the “corruption of the inner core of the Kim family regime”.
Information campaigns become dangerous for authoritarian systems precisely when they undermine the myths that underpin elite legitimacy.
The reaction from authoritarian regimes is revealing.
On April 30, 2026, Foreign Affairs InterviewVictor Cha noted that North Korea responded to Seoul’s remarks about the drone incursions, despite remaining silent on almost every other issue since the new South Korean government took office.
Beijing’s response has been less dramatic but just as instructive. Effective May 1, 2026, Chinese authorities banned the purchase, rental and operation of consumer drones in Beijing without official approval.
Official explanations focused on leadership security. But the restrictions also reflect a broader authoritarian concern: Drones can expose elite spaces and elite behavior in ways that traditional censorship tries to contain.
Two regimes, one willing to discuss only the issue of drones and the other willing to ban them entirely in its capital, are effectively announcing what they fear most: the uncontrolled flow of information.
Redraw the line
A fundamental problem requires a fundamental answer. Washington must restore human rights to the center of its national security strategy and support the information penetration technologies that authoritarian regimes now fear most.
Meanwhile, Seoul must decide whether the principle that “the lives and safety of our citizens are more important than anything else” is applied only when it is politically expedient.
The question is whether democracies are prepared to treat human rights and freedom of information as strategic assets rather than mere rhetorical ideals.
Hanjin Lew is a South Korean political commentator specializing in alliance politics and East Asian security issues.
