|
Quotes of the Day:
“To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous.”
– Confucius
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
– Thomas Jefferson (He wrote it in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, discussing Shays' Rebellion and the nature of political dissent. Jefferson believed that occasional rebellion could be a healthy and necessary aspect of governance, akin to storms that clear the air in nature.)
“A coup is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership.”
1. Trump’s North Korea policy should shift from CVID to CVIF
2. State Dept. says S. Korea-US alliance 'transcends any particular president'
3. South Korean General Gives a Confused Account of a Failed Crackdown
4. As global defense spending surges, South Korean arms makers look like a clear winner
5. South Korean Military Leaders Describe Confusion During Failed Crackdown
6. South Korea’s Yoon Survives Martial Law Miscue – For Now
7. Chances of impeachment grow as ruling party leader calls for suspension of president's power
8. Army special warfare commander says he defied order to drag out lawmakers
9. S. Korean three senior commanders removed over emergency martial law allegations
10. Exclusive: "Round everyone up" Yoon ordered the NIS to arrest politicians after martial law declaration
11. Acting defense minister: no second martial law under any circumstances
12. NIS deputy names leaders targeted by Yoon after martial law declaration
13. N. Korea's state media remains silent about martial law turmoil in S. Korea
14. N. Korea to hold key parliamentary meeting 2 days after Trump's inauguration
15. S. Korea, U.S., Japan to hold talks on N.K. nuclear provocation next week
16. The Six Hours of Chaos That Dragged South Korea Into Martial Law and Back
17. [12/3 Coup Breaking News 5] Full text of the impeachment motion against the President (Yoon Seok-yeol)
18. The Forgotten Crucibles: The Korean War and the Balkans Wars as Markers of Geopolitical Flux
19. Shamanism and Korean politics: Choosing the right time for a coup?
20. The unintended consequences of Yoon's martial law debacle
21. South Korean President Could Declare Martial Law Again, Says Ruling Party Leader
1. Trump’s North Korea policy should shift from CVID to CVIF
I hope that the next ROK President will also embrace President Yoon's freedom-based agenda along with President Trump.
I think all of us should adopt Dr. Scholte's concept of CVIF - irreversible freedom:
"a policy to achieve complete, verifiable and irreversible freedom, or CVIF, for the North Korean people."
Conclusion:
I hope that when Mr. Trump takes office, he will embrace Mr. Yoon’s freedom-based agenda for the Korean Peninsula and pen his next letter to Kim Jong Un: “You have been a terrible leader of your people, only giving them starvation, misery and death. If I could speak on their behalf, I would tell you: ‘You’re fired.’”
Trump’s North Korea policy should shift from CVID to CVIF
In other words: Kim Jong Un, you're fired!
washingtontimes.com · by The Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com
By Suzanne Scholte - Thursday, December 5, 2024
OPINION:
When President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House, his administration should consider a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward North Korea. Current policy calls for Pyongyang to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement, or CVID, of its nuclear program. Instead, the Trump administration should pursue a policy to achieve complete, verifiable and irreversible freedom, or CVIF, for the North Korean people.
This policy would mirror the current goals of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, recognize the hard reality that decades of U.S.-North Korea negotiations have failed and achieve lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula with the liberation of a people who suffer unspeakable atrocities for being born north of instead of south of the Demilitarized Zone.
Recent events in South Korea make this an urgent priority because Mr. Yoon declared martial law this week “in order to defend a free Republic of Korea from the threat of the Communist forces of North Korea, to eradicate all the unscrupulous anti-state, pro-North Korea forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the constitutional order based on liberty.”
Mr. Trump can understand Mr. Yoon better than anyone. Mr. Yoon has faced the weaponization of the legal system and the National Assembly by the pro-Pyongyang factions and constant calls for his impeachment and arrest — a “deep state” bent on destroying South Korea’s democracy and supporting North Korea, Kim Jong Un’s dictatorship.
First, Mr. Yoon made it clear that the policy of his administration is a “freedom-based” peaceful unification.
In his Aug. 15 Korean Liberation Day Address, Mr. Yoon said, “The freedom we enjoy must be extended to the frozen kingdom of the North, where people are deprived of freedom and suffer from poverty and starvation.” He said Korean liberation could truly be achieved only when the two Koreas became “a unified free and democratic nation rightfully owned by the people.”
Dramatic changes have occurred since CVID was first described as a policy goal during the George W. Bush administration in 2004. North Korea has become a nuclear threat, but something positive has also happened: The North Korean people have become far more knowledgeable about the outside world and no longer believe the regime’s lies.
During the most recent North Korea Freedom Week in July, a delegation of North Korean defectors explained that North Koreans, especially younger ones, are hungry for change, and they cannot understand why Mr. Kim is developing nuclear and ballistic missiles while they are starving. Thus, it is important that the United States put their well-being — their human rights — at the forefront of our policy rather than treating it as a secondary concern.
Advertisement
Second, this policy shift would recognize that despite decades of hopeful negotiations by the U.S., from former President Jimmy Carter’s visit to North Korea to meet with then-leader Kim Il Song in June 1994 to Mr. Trump’s summit meetings with Kim Jong Un, North Korea has become a nuclear power and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is even making the Europeans nervous by supporting Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine with weapons and troops.
Hwang Jang Yop, the highest-ranking defector from North Korea, repeatedly warned us when he defected in 1997 that North Korea will use negotiations to extract concessions, but it will never give up its nuclear program. Human rights are the issue, its Achilles’ heel.
Since then, hundreds of North Korean defectors have said the same thing. In all the years of talks with North Korea — the Four Party Talks, the Agreed Framework, the Sunshine Policy, the Engagement Policy and the Six Party Talks — millions of North Koreans have died as we made their suffering secondary to achieving a breakthrough on the nuclear issue.
Worse, we fed the regime’s anti-America propaganda that tells them that the United States is their sworn enemy and occupies South Korea, and that Americans are cruel and murderous people. North Koreans are told that we caused the Korean War, and the stars on our flag represent the people and groups they invaded. Mr. Kim tells them they may be suffering from starvation and deprivation but he is keeping them safe from us.
Third, there will never be lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula until North Korea’s people are liberated and given the opportunity to create for themselves the miracle on the Taedong River that South Koreans created with the miracle on the Han River. Continued direct negotiations with Kim Jong Un will only breathe new life into his murderous but dying dictatorship.
Advertisement
His recent actions are signs of increasing desperation: planting land mines at the China-North Korea border to prevent people from escaping, publicly executing teens for listening to K-pop music or sharing South Korean dramas and most recently executing two women who were helping other women escape to South Korea. Defectors explain that Mr. Kim gave up the 80-year-old policy of unifying the Korean Peninsula under the Kim family dictatorship because he was worried about keeping power.
Now, he is sending trash balloons to South Korea to stop Operation Truth, a partnership between North Korean defectors and freedom-loving citizens to get information and humanitarian aid into North Korea by land, sea and air.
The people of North Korea are increasingly understanding the horrible fact that their dictator does not care about their suffering, only his own survival. Thus, now is the time to embrace CVIF, not fall back into the failed negotiations of the past. Instead, the Trump administration should make their human rights the No. 1 issue and focus on efforts to communicate the truth to the people of North Korea through the best communicators: the North Korean escapees in South Korea. North Korean escapees believe fervently that it is the truth that will set their homeland free.
When Mr. Yoon addressed Congress when he visited in May 2023, he started with a quote from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and used the word freedom 36 times. I believe he was acknowledging that the U.S. overcame a tragic war and division but succeeded in ending the scourge of slavery. Still, the Korean Peninsula is also a divided nation, half free and half slave, as everyone born north of the DMZ is a slave to the Kim regime.
Advertisement
I hope that when Mr. Trump takes office, he will embrace Mr. Yoon’s freedom-based agenda for the Korean Peninsula and pen his next letter to Kim Jong Un: “You have been a terrible leader of your people, only giving them starvation, misery and death. If I could speak on their behalf, I would tell you: ‘You’re fired.’”
• Suzanne Scholte is chair of the North Korea Freedom Coalition and Free North Korea Radio, which carries out Operation Truth to reach North Koreans by land, sea and air. She hosted the first North Korean defectors to speak out in the United States in 1997 and hundreds more since then and is the recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize for her work.
Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
washingtontimes.com · by The Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com
2. State Dept. says S. Korea-US alliance 'transcends any particular president'
Mr. Patel is exactly right. The alliance has weathered various presidents with varied views on both sides of the Pacific. The alliance is stronger than (and "transcends") any one (or two) president(s).
State Dept. says S. Korea-US alliance 'transcends any particular president'
The Korea Times · December 6, 2024
Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson of the State Department, speaks during a press briefing at the department in Washington, D.C., Dec. 3. Yonhap
The Korea-U.S. alliance "transcends any particular president," a State Department spokesperson said Thursday, as the National Assembly is moving to vote on an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived martial law imposition.
Principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel made the remarks, voicing expectation that the impeachment process will proceed in line with Korea's Constitution.
"This relationship, this alliance, this partnership that we have with the Republic of Korea (ROK) ... It transcends any particular president or government on both sides of the Pacific Ocean," Patel told a press briefing, referring to Korea by its official name.
"This is an alliance of partnership that has transcended Republicans, Democrats, different administrations in our government, and as (it) continues to be the same in the Republic of Korea," he added.
Calling the impeachment process an "internal" one, Patel reiterated Washington's expectation that it will be handled in accordance with the Constitution.
"We continue to support the rule of law and democracy in the ROK, which we think are the foundational pillars of our alliance," he said.
Patel also said that Washington was encouraged by the "democratic resilience" of Korea during a "period of testing and "uncertainty," in an apparent reference to the National Assembly's passage of a resolution to overturn the martial law decree.
"We are continuing to expect that the Republic of Korea's democratic system and democratic process will prevail," he said.
Yoon declared martial law late Tuesday and rescinded the emergency order hours later following the legislature's passage of the resolution to withdraw the order. (Yonhap)
The Korea Times · December 6, 2024
3. South Korean General Gives a Confused Account of a Failed Crackdown
This is the ultimate gray area for militaries in a democracy where civil control of the military is the supreme law of the land. There is no black and white checklist or litmus test in these types of circumstances. When faced with actions and orders by political leaders who have not consulted with the military leaders will ask:
‘What should we do?’
Although not exactly foreseen by Clausewitz this is where his concept of coup d'oeil (or the inward looking eye of military genius) where an officer is able to cut through the fog and friction and make a sound judgment based on his experience and education.
Excerpts:
“We were not militarily prepared because it was put into action in such a hurry,” Gen. Park An-su, the Army chief of staff, told a parliamentary hearing on Thursday. “There was confusion.”
His testimony offered the first opportunity for lawmakers to question the military about the martial law order handed down on Tuesday night by President Yoon Suk Yeol. The decree plunged the country into a political crisis, sparking widespread anger that drove thousands of protesters to the streets. Mr. Yoon was forced to reverse course after just six hours.
General Park insisted that he had not had any role in the planning: He told lawmakers he had been caught off guard, first learning of it when Mr. Yoon announced the extraordinary move on television. The military’s follow-up announcement, under his name, banned “all political activities” and public rallies and asserted control over media outlets, among other steps. But in his account on Thursday, General Park claimed he had not read it until his signature was requested.
He described being at a loss over how to proceed as commander, unsure of what steps to take beyond trying to set up a new office.
“We were military people, some of us the best I know,” General Park said of a meeting with aides after he was made martial law commander. “But we didn’t know much about martial law. Time passed while we wondered, ‘What should we do?’”
South Korean General Gives a Confused Account of a Failed Crackdown
The military has spent decades trying to rehabilitate its image and win public trust after a brutal past. Its role in President Yoon’s martial law raised a specter from that era.
Protesters urging President Yoon Suk Yeol to step down held a candlelight vigil in Seoul on Thursday.Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
By Choe Sang-Hun
Reporting from Seoul
Dec. 5, 2024
Updated 3:58 p.m. ET
South Korea’s military — agents of terror and violence in the 1970s and ’80s — spent decades scrupulously cleaning up its image to become what many people in the country came to see as a modern and disciplined force.
But that image was shattered on Thursday when the general who led a short-lived spasm of martial law this week was grilled in Parliament, a rambling appearance that cast the military as ill-prepared and disorganized from the top down.
“We were not militarily prepared because it was put into action in such a hurry,” Gen. Park An-su, the Army chief of staff, told a parliamentary hearing on Thursday. “There was confusion.”
His testimony offered the first opportunity for lawmakers to question the military about the martial law order handed down on Tuesday night by President Yoon Suk Yeol. The decree plunged the country into a political crisis, sparking widespread anger that drove thousands of protesters to the streets. Mr. Yoon was forced to reverse course after just six hours.
General Park insisted that he had not had any role in the planning: He told lawmakers he had been caught off guard, first learning of it when Mr. Yoon announced the extraordinary move on television. The military’s follow-up announcement, under his name, banned “all political activities” and public rallies and asserted control over media outlets, among other steps. But in his account on Thursday, General Park claimed he had not read it until his signature was requested.
He described being at a loss over how to proceed as commander, unsure of what steps to take beyond trying to set up a new office.
“We were military people, some of us the best I know,” General Park said of a meeting with aides after he was made martial law commander. “But we didn’t know much about martial law. Time passed while we wondered, ‘What should we do?’”
Image
Gen. Park An-su told lawmakers in Seoul on Thursday that he had been caught off guard by the declaration of martial law.Credit...Yonhap, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
His testimony was clearly aimed at rebutting the idea that the military had returned to its old, brutal ways. But it appeared unlikely to ease any of the anger from protesters — some of whom had lived through the traumatic era of military rule and had been part of the popular uprising that ushered in South Korea’s democracy.
In the 1970s and ’80s, the military used martial law to send troops into towns and college campuses to violently suppress anti-government protesters, massacring hundreds. It censored the news media, hauling unfriendly journalists into torture dungeons. Army generals beat up lawmakers.
Get the best of The Times in your inbox
-
Sign up for The Great Read:On weekdays and Sundays, we recommend one piece of exceptional writing from The Times — a narrative or essay that takes you someplace you might not expect to go.
-
Thank you for signing up for From The Times. Manage your preferences.
-
Sign up for For You:A round-up of the best stories personalized to you.
South Koreans fought back with stones, firebombs and massive protest rallies. By the 1990s, the generals who had taken power through coups and bloodshed were in prison on charges of mutiny. The military worked to clean up its image, vowing not to meddle in politics.
Many South Koreans believed them. That’s why footage broadcast on Tuesday night of helicopters dropping elite troops to take over the National Assembly deeply shocked the nation. Emblematic of the rage was the scene of a young woman grabbing a paratrooper’s rifle barrel on Tuesday night at the Assembly, yelling: “Shame on you!”
The woman, An Gwi-ryeong, had rushed to the Assembly after the martial law declaration to find troops trying to force their way into the building to prevent lawmakers inside from voting to repeal the order. Citizens and parliamentary staff were resisting the troops.
“I thought we had to stop them no matter what,” Ms. An, a spokesman of the main opposition Democratic Party, said in an interview. “I thought if they broke in, we had no future.”
Ms. An, 35, grew up in a democratized South Korea: Her knowledge of martial law came from history textbooks and movies. When some lawmakers in her party suggested that the deeply unpopular Mr. Yoon could deploy martial law to silence his critics, she said she wondered whether he might do it.
“When it actually happened, it felt not real, this happening in the 21st-century South Korea,” she said. “There is a lot of blame for the military, but the one who is to blame the most is Yoon Suk Yeol, who made his military train its guns at its own citizens.”
The hearings on Thursday were an attempt to understand how and why that happened. The questioning lasted hours and appeared tense at times, as lawmakers raised their voices in frustration.
General Park told them he still did not know who had ordered the troops to storm the National Assembly — a striking claim from the man who was ostensibly their commander. When some lawmakers urged him to resign, General Park said he had already offered to do so.
The country’s deputy defense minister, Kim Seon-ho, testified that the defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, had ordered in the troops — a move he said he had opposed.
Image
Protesters have taken to the streets of Seoul since the martial law declaration. Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
“I am sorry to the people for having been unable to prevent or stop it,” he said.
The defense minister, a former bodyguard of the president, resigned before the hearings and did not testify.
In an interview with The New York Times, one opposition lawmaker, Park Sun-won, who had formerly served as a deputy chief of the National Intelligence Service, said that his bloc had received an advance tip about the military’s movements. The notice gave lawmakers a head start to get to the National Assembly and conduct their vote to reject martial law before the military could break in to stop them.
The military’s failed attempt to take over the Assembly has formed a central piece in the opposition’s argument for why Mr. Yoon should be impeached for “insurgency.”
Mr. Yoon has not been seen in public or made a public statement since the early hours of Wednesday. He had insisted that martial law was necessary to protect the country from an extremely disruptive “anti-state” opposition that he said paralyzed his government.
The National Assembly is scheduled to vote on Saturday about whether to move forward with impeachment. Opposition lawmakers have a majority in the legislature, but an impeachment motion needs a two-thirds vote to pass. That would require some support from members of Mr. Yoon’s party.
The opposition is hoping to take advantage of mass demonstrations scheduled for Saturday to create extra pressure as the vote takes place.
Mr. Yoon has been struggling with abysmal approval ratings for months. One of the first nationwide opinion polls conducted after the martial law suggested overwhelming public disapproval of his latest move. More than 70 percent of South Koreans are in favor of impeaching him, according to the poll conducted by Realmeter, based in Seoul.
The president, who was exempted from South Korea’s mandatory military service because of eye trouble, has had support from many military veterans, thanks to his conservative hard line on North Korea and his efforts to expand military ties with the United States.
Image
South Korean veterans shaved their heads in protest outside the presidential office in Seoul on Thursday.Credit...Ezra Acayan/Getty Images
But on Thursday, old Marine veterans rallied against him near the presidential offices, calling Mr. Yoon the “mastermind of insurgency.”
“Let’s decapitate Yoon Suk Yeol!” they chanted, holding a large banner with the same slogan.
The number of protesters on the streets of Seoul swelled as evening fell, with hundreds of people converging near City Hall. Unlike the many routine protests in the city’s center that are dominated by retirees, the rally featured a vibrant cross-section of the city, grandparents standing shoulder to shoulder with students and parents with children.
People gave speeches and led chants, with “Yoon Suk Yeol must resign” as a common refrain.
Kim Sung-hwan, 67, was in the crowd. During military rule in the 1980s, he helped enforce martial law against protesters, sometimes violently.
“I came because things should never be like that again,” he said.
Victoria Kim and John Yoon contributed reporting.
Choe Sang-Hun is the lead reporter for The Times in Seoul, covering South and North Korea. More about Choe Sang-Hun
4. As global defense spending surges, South Korean arms makers look like a clear winner
See the chart at the link: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/04/as-global-defense-spending-surges-south-korean-arms-makers-look-like-a-clear-winner-.html?utm
Markets
As global defense spending surges, South Korean arms makers look like a clear winner
Published Tue, Dec 3 20246:28 PM EST Updated Wed, Dec 4 20245:44 AM EST
Lim Hui Jie
Key Points
- South Korean defense stocks have had a roaring year in 2024 as global defense spending soared, due to geopolitical uncertainties.
- Basically, the appetite for South Korean arms is because they cost cheaper, arrive faster, and are almost as good as their top-tier counterparts from other countries.
A newly received Korean K9 Thunder howitzer is pictured ahead a military exercise at the training range in Torun, February 23, 2023.
Wojtek Radwanski | Afp | Getty Images
South Korea is known for many things. K-pop, K-dramas and Korean food have made their way across the world.
Now, a new facet from South Korea is poised to make a splash in investors’ portfolios — defense stocks.
Shares of these military manufacturing firms have been surging this year, powered by massive arms orders from other nations.
Most of the leaders in this space, namely, Hanwha Aerospace, Korea Aerospace Industries, Hyundai Rotem and LIG Nex1, have recorded stellar gains so far this year.
Statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed that world military expenditures increased for the ninth consecutive year in 2023, up 6.8% year-over-year and reaching a total of $2.44 trillion. This was the steepest year-on-year rise since 2009, and pushed global spending to a record, the institute added.
Sang Hun Seok, who is an Indo-Pacific visiting fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a U.K.-based policy think tank, explained to CNBC that a steady increase in global expenditure, combined with growing geopolitical uncertainties has provided South Korean arms makers with larger global markets.
“South Korea’s position as a defense industrial powerhouse is backed up by real numbers,” an April report by the Italian Institute for International Political Studies stated, pointing out that the country’s arms exports continually increased from $2 billion to $3 billion in the late 2010s, to $7.3 billion in 2021.
Exports then further climbed to $17.3 billion in 2022, and despite a slight dip to $14 billion in 2023, South Korean arms exports are set to exceed $20 billion in 2024, according to an August report from media outlet Chosun Ilbo.
Furthermore, more countries were importing defense products from Asia’s fourth largest economy. Chosun Ilbo said that just four countries were importing South Korean arms in 2022, but this number rose to 12 in 2023.
watch now
VIDEO09:34
South Korea wants to become one of the world’s biggest arms dealers
The appetite for South Korean arms can be explained by the mantra of “cheaper, better, faster.” Basically, analysts told CNBC South Korean arms are seen as lower in cost with faster production, and are almost as good as their top-tier counterparts from other countries.
Cheaper
The first reason, of course, is cost. RUSI’s Seok said simply: “South Korean exports are highly cost-efficient.” For example, a PAC-3 intercept missile, used by the U.S. Patriot surface-to-air missile system, reportedly costs around $4 million each.
The South Korean Cheon-gong intercept missile, made by LIG Nex1, is known to offer similar performance to the PAC-3 and costs a third of that, he noted.
The prohibitive cost of such weapons has been brought into stark focus during the Russia-Ukraine war, when Moscow launched numerous drone and missile attacks against Ukraine, some strikes consisting of over 100 unmanned aerial vehicles.
A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2022 highlighted this disparity: “Shooting $4 million missiles at $250,000 Russian cruise missiles might be justified if those missiles would hit sensitive targets. Shooting a $4 million missile at a $50,000 Iranian Shahed-136 drone would probably not.”
While U.S. weapon systems are renowned for their top-tier performance, Bruce Bennett, senior defense analyst at U.S. think tank RAND Corporation, said that due to the high cost of U.S.-made weapons, most countries can’t afford them. “And so, the Korean approach of offering a much less expensive weapon that’s almost as good, that was very attractive to a lot of countries,” he said.
Faster
A cost-effective weapon is great, but weapons orders don’t defend a country. Only when a weapon arrives and is operational in a country can it contribute to its defense.
Hoshik Nam, assistant professor in the department of sociology and political science at Jacksonville State University, told CNBC that South Korea has constantly invested heavily in its defense industry, due to the country still being formally at war with North Korea, and was well prepared to meet the increase in demand when orders surged after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
As such, “this sustained investment has allowed the industry to maintain robust production capabilities, unlike some Western countries that scaled down their military production lines after the Cold War.”
For example, Poland placed an order for 48 FA-50s, made by KAI, in 2022 to replenish its fighter platforms after the country donated some of its ex-Soviet fighters to Ukraine.
The FA-50 was chosen due to KAI’s ability to deliver the aircraft quickly, Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Mariusz Blaszczak reportedly said in an interview with Polish media.
12 FA-50s were reportedly delivered by the end of 2023 from South Korean stocks, while the remainder will be built to Polish specifications and be delivered starting from 2025.
The FA-50 is also highly compatible with the U.S.-made F-16 fighter, which Poland also operates, making it an attractive option for countries seeking cost effective alternatives with faster procurement timelines, JSU’s Nam said.
(Almost) better
South Korean arms are, by and large, not the cream of the crop, but in addition to their cost effectiveness, their compatibility with many systems, and their high reliability make them attractive to buyers.
JSU’s Nam said that due to South Korea’s regular joint military exercises with the U.S., South Korean weapon platforms have high compatibility with U.S. and NATO systems, allowing countries to simplify their logistics when acquiring South Korean weapons.
Nam also added that compared to Russian or ex-Soviet weapon systems, South Korean systems have significant reliability advantages, as having a wider base of clients also means a broader support network for servicing systems.
RUSI’s Seok said South Korean defense companies have also been giving very generous terms in other areas, such as technological cooperation, local production and financing. Companies also are very proactive in adapting to buyers’ changing requirements and providing extensive after-sales support, he said.
RAND’s Bennett pointed out the case of India, which signed an agreement with South Korea to domestically produce the K9 Thunder (locally known as the K9 Vajra-T) in 2015.
He said that India had traditionally bought Russian weapons, but Russia was unable to provide support for the systems that were sold, such as maintenance and spare parts.
“So the Korean approach was, from the very beginning, let’s make sure we have a viable supply chain. Let’s provide maintenance. We’ll send people out wherever it is around the world to help you get your maintenance capabilities, your supply chain, your spare parts,” Bennett said.
5. South Korean Military Leaders Describe Confusion During Failed Crackdown
The New York Times provides a fairly comprehensive rundown of events and issues surrounding the martial law debacle. It is much more detailed in a single article (actually a series of articles) than anything I have found in the Korean press.
Many photos also at the link.
South Korean Military Leaders Describe Confusion During Failed Crackdown
Top military officials offered the first inside account of when President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law. Mr. Yoon faces impeachment on Saturday, and massive protests against him are planned.
Published Dec. 4, 2024Updated Dec. 5, 2024
Image
Gen. Park An-su, chief of staff of the South Korean army, speaks during an emergency session of the National Assembly’s defense committee in Seoul on Thursday.Credit...Yonhap, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Pinned
Choe Sang-HunJohn Yoon and Victoria KimReporting from Seoul
South Korean officials on Thursday gave the first inside account of the extraordinary step by the president to declare martial law this week, signaling that the move had caused disagreement, surprise and confusion among top military officials.
The South Korean general whom President Yoon Suk Yeol named martial law commander testified before lawmakers that he learned of the move only when Mr. Yoon announced it on television.
Despite his position, the general, Park An-su, also told the parliamentary committee that he did not know who ordered troops to move in on the National Assembly in an attempt to cordon it off. Later in the day, Gen. Park said he had offered to resign, and that his offer was under review by the Defense Ministry. The questioning lasted hours and appeared tense at times as lawmakers raised their voices in frustration.
The deputy defense minister, Kim Seon-ho, testified that the defense minister had ordered the troops in. Mr. Kim said he had opposed the mobilization. The defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, resigned Thursday before the hearings and did not testify.
The hearings were an inquiry into why martial law was declared for several hours on Tuesday night. Mr. Yoon’s extraordinary move plunged the country into a political crisis, caused widespread anger and drove thousands of protesters to the streets. Mr. Yoon has not been seen in public or made a public statement since the early hours of Wednesday.
The National Assembly is scheduled to vote on Saturday on whether to impeach Mr. Yoon. Opposition lawmakers have a majority in the legislature, but an impeachment motion needs a two-thirds vote to pass. That would require some support from members of Mr. Yoon’s party. The opposition is hoping to take advantage of mass demonstrations scheduled for Saturday to create extra pressure as the vote takes place.
Here’s what else to know:
-
Mr. Yoon has been struggling with abysmal approval ratings for months. One of the first nationwide opinion polls conducted after the martial law declaration suggested overwhelming public disapproval of the move. More than 70 percent of South Koreans are in favor of impeaching him, according to the poll conducted by Realmeter, based in Seoul.
- Protests entered a third night, as hundreds of people gathered outside City Hall in downtown Seoul on Thursday. Unions, student groups and the opposition have called for a large protest in Seoul on Saturday to coincide with the National Assembly’s impeachment vote.
Show less
Dec. 5, 2024, 5:42 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
The protest near Gwanghwamun in Seoul has swelled to about a thousand people, and they have started marching to Yongsan, which houses the office of President Yoon Suk Yeol. He faces an impeachment motion that will be voted on Saturday night.
Dec. 5, 2024, 4:56 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
It’s finals season at universities in South Korea. But Jun Ho Cho, 19, a computer science major, showed up at the protest in Seoul anyway, saying he was angered by President Yoon’s martial law declaration. “You need a country to study in, right?” he said. In elementary school he watched the 2016 rallies against former President Park Geun-hye from the sidelines, and he wanted to come out this time.
A detailed look at each stage of the impeachment process, and what is to come for President Yoon.
Dec. 5, 2024, 4:54 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
Li Ho, an artist in her 40s who was at the protest in Seoul, said she rarely paid attention to the news, doesn’t have a TV and didn’t join the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated for the former President Park Geun-hye’s ouster in 2016. “But she didn’t declare martial law,” Ho said, holding a protest sign she painted the morning after President Yoon’s martial law declaration. “The person in the presidency’s gone crazy.”
Dec. 5, 2024, 4:34 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
President Yoon’s brief imposition of martial law has motivated an intergenerational crowd to show up at the protest in Seoul. Unlike the many routine protests in the city's center that are dominated by retirees, tonight’s rally has drawn a vibrant cross-section of the city, grandparents standing shoulder to shoulder with students and parents with children.
Image
Credit...John Yoon/The New York Times
Dec. 5, 2024, 4:26 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
As the workday ends in Seoul, hundreds of demonstrators are converging on a square near City Hall to call for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s removal from office. The ground is slick with earlier rain, so people are having to stand as they hold up their candles — a perennial feature of such gatherings in South Korea.
Dec. 5, 2024, 4:27 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
A stage has been set up for a live band to perform and for people to give speeches and lead chants. The crowd is shouting: “Yoon Suk Yeol must resign!”
Dec. 5, 2024, 3:21 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
Victoria Kim
Lawmakers grilled Army Gen. Park An-su, who was designated to lead the martial law command, for hours in a National Assembly committee hearing on Thursday. When some lawmakers urged him to resign, General Park said he had already offered to do so on Wednesday and that it was under review by the defense ministry.
Dec. 5, 2024, 3:53 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
Victoria Kim
General Park said that during the martial law deployment, some units asked for permission to use Tasers and fire blanks because the troops were outnumbered, but that he denied the request because that could endanger the public.
Dec. 5, 2024, 3:14 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
Mike Ives
Open modal at item 1 of 5
Open modal at item 2 of 5
Open modal at item 3 of 5
Open modal at item 4 of 5
Open modal at item 5 of 5
When South Koreans saw footage of troops clashing with civilians while breaking into the country’s National Assembly this week, many recalled the military’s actions during a political crisis in 1980.
This week, nearly 300 South Korean troops stormed the assembly during the six hours that President Yoon Suk Yeol imposed martial law. The public saw their actions as an attempt to arrest the lawmakers inside, who eventually voted to nullify the declaration and force Mr. Yoon to rescind it.
In May 1980, the turmoil lasted longer and turned deadly. Old photos evoke the chaos, violence and defiance of the time.
The unrest that year was set off by a martial law declaration by Chun Doo-hwan, a military dictator who had seized power in a 1979 coup. Political activities were banned, schools were closed, and dissidents were arrested.
Lots of ordinary people resisted. One photo (bottom right) shows thousands of students rallying on the campus of Seoul National University on May 2, 1980. They were demanding the lifting of martial law, and the resignation of the country’s prime minister and its intelligence chief.
Another photo from Seoul (top left) shows police vehicles spraying tear gas at a crowd of student demonstrators on May 15, 1980. Police officers in riot gear walk behind the vehicles in formation.
That month, troops wielding batons and bayonets opened fire on pro-democracy protesters in the southwestern city of Gwangju. That massacre would become a pivotal moment in the country’s transition to democracy and a lingering trauma for generations of South Koreans, including the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Han Kang.
During the 10-day Gwangju uprising, the military seized control of the news media and bludgeoned students on streets thick with tear gas. The crackdown left hundreds killed or missing.
In the photo at the top right, from May 27, 1980, armed soldiers lead captured people through the streets after a firefight. The photo below that shows soldiers laying a roadblock the day before on a street leading to Gwangju’s downtown.
The photo at the bottom left shows a blood-splattered student being clubbed by a paratrooper medic in Gwangju on May 20, 1980. The photo was the first to slip through the military cordon around the city, and it helped expose the military’s brutal suppression of the uprising.
For years, the photojournalist who captured the image, Na Kyung Taek, did not take credit for it. He feared reprisals from the military junta and its leader, Mr. Chun, whose rule ended in 1988.
Earlier this year, Mr. Na told The New York Times that he had one regret about his work during the Gwangju uprising.
At one point, he heard a captain repeating an order that came through the radio to shoot into crowds, he recalled. He fled for his life, with his cameras hidden under his shirt.
“I should have taken out my camera,” he said. “Although if I had, I probably wouldn’t be here.”
Show less
Dec. 5, 2024, 3:11 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
Zuzanna Piekarska
A group of South Korean military veterans held a demonstration outside the presidential office in Seoul on Thursday, calling for President Yoon to be impeached. Some shaved their heads, a longstanding protest tradition in South Korea, especially among dissidents during the decades of military dictatorship.
Image
Image
Credit...Ezra Acayan/Getty Images
Dec. 5, 2024, 1:59 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
Jason KaraianReporting from Seoul
South Korea’s markets remain under pressure. The country’s benchmark index fell for a second day, losing 0.9 percent, with big banks again among the hardest-hit shares. The won was steady against the dollar, settling at a level about 1 percent weaker than when martial law was announced on Tuesday.
How many South Korean won a U.S. dollar buys
Note: Seoul local time. Scale is inverted: A falling line indicates a weaker won.Source: FactSetBy The New York Times
Dec. 5, 2024, 2:03 a.m. ETDec. 5, 2024
Jason KaraianReporting from Seoul
South Korea's finance minister, central bank governor and other senior regulatory officials have promised to support markets and pledged to hold “emergency” meetings every morning until conditions stabilize. They said after Thursday’s meeting that investors should act “calmly” and not be “overly anxious.”
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:55 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Choe Sang-HunReporting from Seoul
The South Korean special forces who went inside the National Assembly after the declaration of martial law were not carrying live ammunition, Kim Seon-ho, the deputy defense minister, told a parliamentary hearing on Thursday.
Image
Credit...Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:53 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Qasim NaumanReporting from Seoul
President Yoon has struggled with abysmal approval ratings for months, and one of the first nationwide opinion polls conducted after his martial law declaration suggested overwhelming public disapproval of his move. More than 70 percent of South Koreans are in favor of impeaching him, according to the survey by Realmeter, a polling company in Seoul.
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:53 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
The vote to impeach President Yoon will take place on Saturday at around 7 p.m., said Jo Seounglae, a spokesman for the opposition Democratic Party. Mr. Jo said the schedule would allow the public and members of the ruling People Power Party to reflect on what he described as an “unconstitutional coup.”
Dec. 4, 2024, 11:10 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
John YoonReporting from Seoul
Weekend protests traditionally draw larger crowds in South Korea as people are off work. Opposition lawmakers hope to use mass demonstrations on Saturday as leverage for their motion to impeach President Yoon.
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:46 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Qasim NaumanReporting from Seoul
There was no sign on Thursday morning that the protests demanding President Yoon’s impeachment would end. Thousands of people participated in peaceful gatherings on Wednesday, with some going late into the night. At least one major protest is planned in downtown Seoul on Thursday afternoon.
Image
Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:35 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Choe Sang-HunReporting from Seoul
Army Gen. Park An-su told a parliamentary committee on Thursday that he learned of the martial law only when President Yoon declared it on television. General Park also said he did not know who ordered the troops to go into the National Assembly building, even though he was the martial law commander.
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:42 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Choe Sang-HunReporting from Seoul
Kim Yong-hyun, the defense minister who resigned on Thursday, ordered the soldiers to enter the National Assembly, Kim Seon-ho, the deputy defense minister, told lawmakers. The deputy minister said he had opposed mobilizing troops to enforce martial law.
Dec. 4, 2024, 7:44 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Choe Sang-HunReporting from Seoul
Image
Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun of South Korea in October.Credit...Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, announced on Thursday that he had accepted the resignation of his defense minister, the first member of Mr. Yoon’s cabinet to lose his job since the president’s short-lived declaration of martial law on Tuesday night stunned the country.
The defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, had tendered his resignation on Wednesday, saying that he considered himself responsible for the crisis that the martial law decree had created for Mr. Yoon’s government. He did not directly address allegations among opposition lawmakers and local media that he had suggested the idea to Mr. Yoon.
A statement from the presidential office said that Mr. Kim would be replaced by Choi Byung Hyuk, a retired army general who has been serving as South Korea’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Yoon withdrew the martial law declaration early Wednesday morning, after the National Assembly voted unanimously against it and protesters gathered to denounce the move. Opposition lawmakers later introduced a motion to impeach Mr. Yoon, which could be voted on as soon as Friday.
If two-thirds of the 300 lawmakers in the National Assembly vote for the motion, Mr. Yoon will be impeached and suspended from office until the country’s Constitutional Court makes a final ruling on whether to reinstate or remove him. All 192 opposition lawmakers support impeachment, but they need at least eight votes from members of Mr. Yoon’s People Power Party to impeach him.
The head of that party, Han Dong-hoon, said on Thursday that he would try to persuade its lawmakers to vote against impeachment, to prevent what he called national “confusion.”
But at the same time, Mr. Han tried to distance the party from Mr. Yoon, calling his martial law decree “unconstitutional” and demanding that he give up his party membership. Mr. Han also said that military leaders who were involved in imposing martial law must be removed from their posts. He did not identify any commanders by name.
“We must show to the military that if they get involved in an unconstitutional and illegal martial law, they will be punished immediately,” Mr. Han said.
Gen. Park An-su, the army chief of staff, led the martial law command during the several hours before the decree was rescinded. Hundreds of troops were sent into the National Assembly in what opposition lawmakers called an “illegal” and “unconstitutional” attempt to stop them from voting against the decree. Staff members barricaded hallways with furniture and used fire extinguishers against troops to keep them from entering the voting chamber.
Mr. Kim, the outgoing defense minister, said the troops had been following his orders when they entered the National Assembly. Mr. Yoon has insisted that martial law was needed to protect the country from disruptive political opposition that had paralyzed his administration.
Show less
Dec. 4, 2024, 12:52 p.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Motoko RichReporting from Tokyo
Image
President Biden with President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea, left, and Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba of Japan, right, in Peru last month. Their countries have been strengthening their ties, largely to counter China.Credit...Eric Lee/The New York Times
When President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea visited the White House last year, he charmed the Washington establishment by singing Don McLean’s “American Pie.” When he flew to Tokyo to usher in a new era of conciliation with Japan, it was a genial visit, with the prime minister treating Mr. Yoon to “omurice,” a Japanese dish that the South Korean leader likes.
But that mood was gone on Wednesday, a day after Mr. Yoon imposed — and then rescinded — martial law in South Korea. Officials in the United States and Japan were scrambling to understand why the leader they’d both embraced had made such a shocking authoritarian move.
Now, the domestic political chaos unleashed by Mr. Yoon could imperil the countries’ three-way alliance in the Pacific, where they had been fortifying their relationships to confront an increasingly assertive China and North Korea.
The disorder in South Korea — where cabinet members on Wednesday were offering to resign and opposition lawmakers were moving to impeach Mr. Yoon — comes on top of political uncertainty in both the United States and Japan. Last month, former President Donald J. Trump, a notoriously mercurial leader who tried to undermine American alliances while in power, was elected to a second term.
And in October, Japanese voters delivered a resounding blow to the longtime governing party and the new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, denying them a majority in Parliament.
“Many in the world were counting on Japan and South Korea, along with Australia and others, to keep the flag flying and keep the head of good governance and democracy above water in the face of this incredible pressure from North Korea, China and Iran and Russia,” said Daniel Russel, a vice president at the Asia Society who was the assistant secretary of state for Asia under President Barack Obama.
Image
Then-President Donald J. Trump with his South Korea counterpart, Moon Jae-in, at the presidential Blue House in Seoul in 2019. Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Before Tuesday, most international policy experts had been far more concerned about unpredictability in Washington. During Mr. Trump’s first term as president, he often accused South Korea and Japan of siphoning off American military resources, even threatening to pull troops out of South Korea. And at pomp-filled summits in Singapore and Hanoi, he engaged the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, in direct personal diplomacy, trying and failing to reach a deal on reducing the North’s nuclear arsenal.
Now, it is not only Mr. Trump’s return to power that makes the three-way alliance look volatile.
“Yoon’s self-inflicted wounds, combined with the now-weakened Japanese leadership, leaves the U.S. with two weak players in pushing back against China,” said Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Just a few months ago, Mr. Klingner said, “the potential weak link was changes in U.S. policy.”
The events of Tuesday night in Seoul are already yielding ripple effects. American and South Korean military officials have postponed a high-level meeting to discuss nuclear deterrence issues.
Japan’s defense minister, Gen Nakatani, said he “would like to keep a close eye on how the situation develops” before confirming a visit to South Korea. Mr. Ishiba, the prime minister, who had been discussing a January trip to Seoul, said he was monitoring the situation with “grave interest.”
Image
Mr. Biden with Mr. Yoon and Fumio Kishida, then Japan’s prime minister, at Camp David last year.Credit...Samuel Corum for The New York Times
One reason the three-way alliance now looks so fragile is that, to some extent, it has depended on the personalities and priorities of the countries’ leaders. Convivial photos of Mr. Yoon, then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan and President Biden at a summit last year at Camp David, looking casual without neckties, suggested a friendly bond between them.
“There was certainly an element of serendipity in the group of leaders who were committed to all of this,” said Christopher Johnstone, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former director for East Asia on the National Security Council in the Biden administration.
With Mr. Trump’s return to the White House just weeks away, the next political turnover could happen in Seoul if the motion to impeach Mr. Yoon passes. Analysts predict he would be succeeded by his main rival, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the liberal Democratic Party, which could shift South Korea’s foreign policy stance. Mr. Lee’s party has typically shied away from close relations with the United States and with Japan, with which South Korea has long-running tensions stemming from Japan’s colonial occupation of the Korean Peninsula.
A government under Democratic Party leadership would be “more likely to want to hedge between China and the U.S. and downplay the importance of trilateral security cooperation with Tokyo and Washington,” Lauren Richardson, a lecturer in international relations at Australian National University, wrote in an email.
Image
Lee Jae-myung, front and center, and other opposition lawmakers at the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday, demanding that Mr. Yoon resign and face arrest for declaring martial law.Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
In many ways, the relationship between Japan and South Korea is the most important link of the three-way alliance, said Ji-Young Lee, a professor of international relations and Korean studies at American University in Washington, who credited Mr. Yoon with pushing for the rapprochement with Japan despite some public opposition.
The stronger trilateral relationship was made possible in the first place because of improved relations between Japan and South Korea, Ms. Lee said. “It was primarily the work of Yoon Suk Yeol and his desire to improve relations with Japan, and if you take that out of the picture, then you are really talking about a great deal of uncertainty for the future of Japan-Korean relations,” she added.
There were signs of fragility in that relationship just last month, when South Korean officials boycotted a ceremony organized by Japan to commemorate workers at gold mines on Sado Island. South Korea has long protested the fact that Japan has not acknowledged or apologized for the conscription of Koreans during World War II to work in the mines, which were recently designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Kunihiko Miyake, a former Japanese diplomat, said he hoped the two governments, regardless of who was in charge, would continue to build on the recent efforts to improve relations, if only to survive the struggle for supremacy between the United States and China.
South Korean officials “know the reality — their population is shrinking, their economy is bad and they cannot count on the Americans and they can’t count on the Chinese,” said Mr. Miyake. “So we need to work together — the Japanese and the Koreans.”
Despite the developments in Seoul, uncertainty in Washington could still be the bigger risk, analysts say. “The biggest elephant is the United States,” said Nobukatsu Kanehara, a professor of political science at Doshisha University in Kyoto. The trilateral partnership consists of “a whale plus two dolphins,” he added.
Mr. Kanehara said he feared that Mr. Trump, who prefers “strong men,” might regard both Mr. Yoon, if he lasts until Mr. Trump’s inauguration, and Mr. Ishiba of Japan as weak leaders.
Some analysts said Mr. Trump’s return was not the only issue for American policy in Asia. By not forcefully condemning Mr. Yoon’s declaration of martial law, the Biden administration showed “the gap between our rhetoric and the reality of our actions,” said David C. Kang, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a research group in Washington.
“We’re willing to say we love rule of law and democracy and everything else, but we will just blatantly ignore this kind of behavior because the guy is on our side,” Mr. Kang said. “But the rest of the world is not stupid. They see this, and they are very skeptical of the U.S. administration.”
Kiuko Notoya contributed research.
Show less
Dec. 4, 2024, 10:31 a.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
The New York Times
Image
A memorial to the victims of a Halloween crowd crush in Seoul, in 2022.Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea was elected in March 2022 by a margin of just 0.8 percentage points, a victory seen more as a rejection of his liberal predecessor than as an endorsement of him or his campaign.
Since then, Mr. Yoon’s approval ratings have slumped amid a series of crises and scandals, culminating in his attempt to impose martial law on Tuesday in response to government gridlock. Mr. Yoon quickly backed down Wednesday morning, but the move prompted South Korea’s political opposition to begin impeachment proceedings against him.
Here are some of the most high-profile controversies of his tenure:
An insult goes viral.
Within four months of Mr. Yoon’s taking office, five of his cabinet-level appointees had resigned amid accusations of ethical lapses.
Then, in September 2022, he was caught on a hot mic and seen on camera apparently insulting U.S. lawmakers after meeting President Biden in New York. A spokeswoman for Mr. Yoon said he had been talking about South Korean lawmakers, not Americans. But many of Mr. Yoon’s critics rejected that assertion.
A Halloween crowd crush kills dozens.
On Oct. 29, 2022, a crowd crush at a Halloween celebration in one of Seoul’s most popular nightlife districts killed 158 people. Official documents and parliamentary testimony showed that the South Korean authorities had ignored or missed several opportunities to prevent the disaster.
The Seoul metropolitan police chief at the time, Kim Kwang-ho, told Parliament that the force had been “significantly focused” on the government’s antidrug efforts when asked whether that campaign had distracted officials from ensuring crowd safety. Mr. Yoon, facing calls to resign, blamed the police and other agencies for failing to predict the crush.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, the government insisted it was not responsible for ensuring public safety on the streets. Mr. Yoon ignored demands from victims’ families to fire top safety officials. He also dismissed requests for a meeting with the relatives of the dead and refused to issue an apology.
The first lady accepts a Dior pouch.
Hidden camera footage released by local news media in late 2023 showed Mr. Yoon’s wife, Kim Keon Hee, accepting a $2,200 Dior pouch as a gift, apparently violating a ban on government officials and their spouses accepting gifts worth more than $750.
In a survey in December 2023, a majority of South Koreans said they thought it was inappropriate for Ms. Kim to have accepted the gift. Ms. Kim appeared to deny claims of wrongdoing, according to local news media. Some officials from Mr. Yoon’s People Power Party called the incident a “trap” designed to influence parliamentary elections in April. Prosecutors decided not to charge Ms. Kim over the gift in October, local media reported.
A marine’s death is scrutinized.
Earlier this year, after a 20-year-old member of the South Korean Marine Corps was killed during a rescue mission, a military officer accused the Defense Ministry of whitewashing the inquiry under pressure from Mr. Yoon.
The marine, Lance Corporal Chae Su-geun, died while looking for missing residents in waist-high floodwaters in 2023, and the inquiry found that his team was ill-equipped for the task.
The accusation was the first major political crisis for Mr. Yoon since his party’s major defeat in parliamentary elections in April and raised the possibility that the president could face impeachment proceedings. In July, Mr. Yoon vetoed a bill that would have mandated a special counsel investigation into the allegations that his office and senior military officials interfered in the inquiry, calling it politically motivated.
Show less
Dec. 4, 2024, 3:58 a.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Daisuke Wakabayashi and Su-Hyun LeeReporting from Seoul
Image
Newspapers at a subway gate in downtown Seoul on Wednesday, after President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea lifted a declaration of martial law.Credit...Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
When President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea shocked the nation by declaring martial law, he placed news organizations under the rule of military command and outlawed “fake news.” It was a striking escalation of his long-running feud with media critical of his administration.
But when faced with censorship by the military, the Korean press did not acquiesce. News organizations spanning the political spectrum — even right-leaning publications more aligned with Mr. Yoon’s conservative People Power Party — stood united in criticism of his actions and any efforts to limit a free press.
Mr. Yoon, a former prosecutor, described his decision to declare martial law late on Tuesday as an act “of national resolve against the anti-state forces that are trying to paralyze the essential functions of the state and disrupt the constitutional order of our liberal democracy.” As part of the declaration, the South Korean military issued a decree prohibiting “fake news, public opinion manipulation, and false propaganda,” placing all media and publications under its control.
While Mr. Yoon reversed the declaration about six hours later, it offered a glimpse of the risks posed by years of challenges to press freedoms in South Korea by the country’s political leaders.
An editorial in Chosun Ilbo, one of South Korea’s biggest daily newspapers with a conservative leaning, called the president’s actions an international “embarrassment.” Mr. Yoon needed to answer to the public on how he intended to “take responsibility” for this situation, it added.
“How can the current situation justify restricting the basic rights of citizens?,” the paper wrote.
In the liberal Hankyoreh, an editorial declared: “The Republic of Korea’s biggest security risk is ‘Yoon Suk Yeol.’”
Chun Young-sun, managing editor of Korea JoongAng Daily, the English-language edition of daily newspaper JoongAng Ilbo, said there were no guidelines for how to react when the government declares martial law because it had not happened for decades. She said the outlet’s first reaction was to report the facts and send reporters out to the scene.
“At no point did we consider stopping or limiting coverage,” she said in a LinkedIn post. “The idea that we would do anything but continue reporting never really crossed our minds.”
(Korea JoongAng Daily copublishes its print edition with The International New York Times.)
A consortium of unions representing journalists and media industry workers condemned Mr. Yoon in a statement, calling his actions “anti-democratic,” “unconstitutional” and a denial of the “historical achievements of democracy and press freedom that the entire nation has fought for with blood over half a century.”
Press freedom was one of the hard-earned rights that South Koreans gained in the country’s difficult march toward democracy from the 1980s, after decades of military rule and sweeping media controls. Today, South Korea has dozens of broadcasters and hundreds of newspapers — although the country, like many others, is grappling with how to handle the damage of disinformation spread by social media.
Park Sung Hee, a professor of media at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, said the media’s aggressive and critical response to the declaration of martial law showed that “Korea’s press freedom is alive and well.” She noted that South Koreans are very digitally connected and that “any attempt to suppress or dominate the flow of information cannot easily succeed.”
When Mr. Yoon took office in 2022, after eking out a victory in the closest race of any free presidential election in the country’s history, he seemed open to the press — going as far as fielding questions from reporters in the morning as he arrived for work.
At the time, it came as a sharp contrast to the previous president, Moon Jae-in, and his liberal Democratic Party. In 2021, Mr. Moon’s government tried unsuccessfully to enact a proposal to stamp out what it deemed “fake news” with hefty financial penalties. Amid outcry from journalists and news organizations, the legislation failed to pass.
But Mr. Yoon’s media honeymoon did not last. He, too, turned openly hostile with the press: The president has turned to a combination of lawsuits, regulation and criminal investigations in an effort to suppress what he considered disinformation.
Under Mr. Yoon, police and prosecutors have raided newsrooms and the homes of journalists whom his office has accused of spreading “fake news.” His administration and political allies have filed a series of defamation cases that carry possible criminal charges.
In a 2023 human rights report on South Korea, the U.S. State Department said the government was “accused of using libel and slander laws, which were broadly defined and criminalized defamation, to restrict public discussion and harass, intimidate or censor private and media expression.”
Lee Sangwon, an assistant professor at Korea University School of Media & Communication, said, in general, that the Korean press had been reluctant to be overly critical of Mr. Yoon in the past, but the declaration of martial law was such an extreme act that the media was united in condemning the president.
“It was a tipping point,” he said.
Show less
Dec. 4, 2024, 1:30 a.m. ETDec. 4, 2024
Qasim NaumanReporting from Seoul
Image
South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo at the National Assembly in Seoul in November.Credit...Pool photo by Lee Jin-Man
Members of South Korea’s opposition, which controls the National Assembly, have submitted a motion to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol after his ill-fated decision to impose martial law.
If Mr. Yoon quits or is removed from office then, under the constitution, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will step in to perform presidential duties.
Mr. Yoon, a conservative, came into office after winning the 2022 presidential election by a threadbare margin, and appointed Mr. Han as the prime minister that year. It marked Mr. Han’s second time in that job; he had served under President Roh Moo-hyun, a liberal, from April 2007 to February 2008.
Mr. Han began his career as a civil servant in the early 1970s, working on trade and industrial policy for decades. He received a doctorate in economics from Harvard in 1984. From 2009 to 2012, Mr. Han was South Korea’s ambassador to the United States.
Mr. Yoon has been in a bitter standoff with the opposition, led by the progressive Democratic Party, for almost his entire tenure as president. The Democratic Party inflicted a crushing defeat on his People Power Party in the parliamentary elections held in April, leaving him on the verge of being a lame duck.
The Democratic Party has said it would begin impeachment proceedings if Mr. Yoon does not step down immediately. The president is impeached if two-thirds of the 300-member legislature vote in favor of doing so.
Mr. Han would act as the president until impeachment proceedings conclude. How long he would need to serve in that interim capacity is unclear.
Under South Korean law, once the National Assembly has impeached the president, the matter could go to the Constitutional Court. If the court upholds the impeachment, the president would be removed from office.
If Mr. Yoon is removed or steps down, a successor would need to be elected within 60 days.
Show less
See more on: Yoon Suk-yeol
6. South Korea’s Yoon Survives Martial Law Miscue – For Now
I have not seen this reported in the Korean media yet. I would think Yonhap would be reporting this but so far nothing. The Korea Times is reporting that the PPP leader Han Dong-hoon Yoon's own party) is calling for Yoon's suspension and impeachment and reporting that impeachment looks imminent.
South Korea’s Yoon Survives Martial Law Miscue – For Now
Proclamation fails, leaving opposition Democrats baying at his heels
https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/south-korea-yoon-suk-yeol-survive-martial-law-miscue?utm
Dec 06, 2024
2
Share
By: Shim Jae Hoon
After an extraordinary political episode involving South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s abortive December 3 declaration of martial law, his ruling People Power Party’s move to resist impeachment and protect him appears likely to succeed, at least for now, despite disapproval from across the South Korean political spectrum. Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in the 300-member National Assembly, which would oblige the six-party opposition coalition to find eight defectors from the government party, unlikely even despite condemnation from many of his own allies.
The ruling party members fear that the downfall of Yoon’s government could pave the way for another leftwing populist regime to take over. Nonetheless, Yoon is now the target of international condemnation, making it uncertain how long he can survive, even with the backing of his die-hard allies. The center-left Democratic Party, supported by industrial unions and the underprivileged urban poor, is determined to retake the government from the conservative, pro-business section of voters. The Korea Gallup Poll shows Yoon's popularity today down to 13 percent, the lowest on record.
While the immediate crisis was short-lived, Yoon’s gaffe could have longer-term policy ramifications both at home and abroad, with the country’s most important ally the United States facing its own political uncertainties with the election of former President Donald Trump, a reluctant internationalist who mistrusts treaties and who returns to office on January 20. Trump has stated he intends to restart dialogue with Pyongyang and he might prefer Yoon’s archrival, Democratic opposition leader Lee Jae Myung despite his political baggage. Yoon’s recent efforts to expand and institutionalize bilateral and multilateral security cooperation may be in peril.
Yoon under fire
Acute polarization between the conservative PPP and the populist, left-leaning Democratic Party has been at the roots of the current crisis, as the embattled president has fought attempts to take control of the parliamentary floor since April 10 general elections that gave the Democrats a 175-seat majority of the 300 seats to 108 for the ruling PPP. The Democrats, under Lee, have been fighting fang and claw to keep the government on the defensive, passing motions and resolutions resisting Yoon’s legislative programs and resorting to a series of impeachments of major government appointments even before they were sworn into office. Several state prosecutors appointed to probe allegations of corruption involving the Democratic Party officials have also been impeached before taking office.
Lee leading opposition
Beyond policy differences, the opposition has been waging a vigorous campaign to discredit the government over allegations of corruption involving Yoon’s wife, who faces accusations of bribery, influence-peddling, and stock market manipulation. Lee’s party has rejected the results of investigation by government prosecutors that largely absolve the president’s wife. Unmollified, the opposition is now demanding an independent counsel investigation, which the governing party rejects.
The issue of corruption and venality is an overarching problem for all sides of South Korea’s political spectrum. While Yoon’s wife has been widely criticized for allegations of accepting bribes (she reportedly accepted a brand-name pouch from someone claiming to be a friend of her father’s), Yoon has persistently refused to accept an independent counsel probe, with the opposition camp understandably rejecting all probes by the government itself.
No less concerning have been charges of corruption on a spectacular scale involving Lee Jae Myung, who faces altogether half a dozen separate charges of crimes ranging from approving illegal construction permits for housing projects outside Seoul, using his previous posts as mayor and provincial governor. At one of the most recent court hearings, he was convicted of election law violations as well and sentenced to a year’s prison, suspended for two years.
With at least five people who had worked for him when he was a city mayor and governor taking their lives to avoid answering court subpoenas, Lee has recently risen in the public consciousness as a paragon of venal politician. Among the more serious charges is an allegation that he had a garment maker pay U$8 million to North Korea as a bribe to get him invited by Kim Jong Un’s regime to Pyongyang that would embellish his image as potential presidential timber. Lee and the Democrats began escalating attacks on the Yoon government following the 2022 elections he won by the PPP by a hairsbreadth margin of 48.56 percent to 47.83 percent with the opposition seizing the majority of 190 seats in the National Assembly.
Against that backdrop of accelerating confrontation on the assembly floor, Yoon, a political novice who was formerly a state prosecutor, took what an American senior diplomat described as a “badly misjudged” initiative in calling for martial law. He was supposedly unaware of his country’s political history. South Koreans have grown tired of any more military rule, the last phase of which ended 45 years ago after four decades of having the generals in charge.
When Yoon declared martial law this week, attacking what he described as “anti-state forces trying to paralyze the essential functions of the state and disrupt the constitutional order of our liberal democracy,” he was referring to Democratic Party behavior on the assembly floor under Lee’s agitation. “We must stop this impeachment campaign being used by Lee Jae Myung as an excuse to escape criminal conviction himself and take power,” said Han Dong Hoon, the top government party leader.
But Yoon’s statement, if accurately describing the country’s political divisions, has fallen clearly short of justifying his bid to implement martial law, incredibly misreading the political mood of his own countrymen. Martial law has become an outdated as well as unwelcome solution. Today, South Koreans of all political shades hold noisy rallies in the downtown section of the capital each Saturday, with busloads of protesters moved from all parts of the country. Even regular changes of government every five years, and general elections every four, haven’t been enough to accommodate divergent political demands.
It was thus small wonder that Yoon’s martial law statement fell flat, with tens of thousands of people from all over the country filling up Seoul’s main thoroughfare. Within hours of Yoon’s broadcast, multitudes had converged on the National Assembly building, some breaking glass to enter the Assembly chambers.
With thousands of citizens on the streets, there was no chance that the military could seize the parliament building to stop legislators from arriving to reverse Yoon’s declaration. Those who managed to enter the plenary session chamber quickly started a voting process vetoing the declaration. A total of 190 legislators from both parties had broken into the chamber to vote against martial law, forcing Yoon to rescind the decree just hours after declaring it.
While fiercely agitating for independent investigation of the president’s wife, the Democrats stand accused of running weekly protest marches in Seoul partly to cover party boss Lee’s transgressions. It appears uncertain at this stage if he himself will survive multiple rounds of court hearings slated before the next presidential election which now appears likely to be advanced in view of attempts to remove Yoon from office, which appear likely to intensify.
7. Chances of impeachment grow as ruling party leader calls for suspension of president's power
Chances of impeachment grow as ruling party leader calls for suspension of president's power
The Korea Times · by 2024-12-06 17:28 | Law & Crime · December 6, 2024
People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon is surrounded by reporters at the National Assembly in Seoul, Friday. Yonhap
Han Dong-hoon changes stance after learning he was one of arrest targets by martial law troops
By Anna J. Park
Ruling People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon stressed Friday the urgent need to swiftly suspend President Yoon Suk Yeol's powers and duties in order to protect Korea and its people, virtually supporting impeachment of the president following Yoon's bungled martial law declaration.
The shift in stance by Han, who initially said until the previous day that his party would make efforts to prevent impeachment, has significantly increased the likelihood of the impeachment motion passing at the National Assembly's plenary session on Saturday.
During an emergency PPP Supreme Council meeting at the Assembly in Seoul earlier in the day, Han said his party has confirmed, through credible evidence, that Yoon instructed then-Defense Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyung, who is Yoon's high school junior, to arrest prominent political figures on charges of being anti-national forces. Han was allegedly one of them.
"It has been confirmed that the president used military intelligence agencies to arrest these politicians. We have also learned that there were specific plans to imprison these politicians at a detention facility in Gwacheon (of Gyeonggi Province)," Han said during the meeting.
"I had previously pledged to work against the impeachment drive to avoid chaos and protect the people and supporters, but given the new facts emerging, I now believe it is necessary to immediately suspend the president’s duties to safeguard the Republic of Korea and its people."
Han also criticized President Yoon for failing to take action against the military officials who participated in the martial law operation.
"The president has not even acknowledged the illegality of the martial law declaration," he continued. "If Yoon remains in office, there is a high risk of repeating extreme actions like the recent martial law, which could place Korea and its people in grave danger."
Along with Han's announcement, two high-profile PPP lawmakers have stated their open support of impeachment.
For the impeachment motion to be passed, it requires the approval of at least two-thirds of Assembly members, meaning at least 200 out of the total 300. As 192 members belong to the opposition parties, at least eight PPP members' approval is needed.
Rep. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea, delivers a special statement on the fallout of the martial law situation at the National Assembly in Seoul, Friday. Yonhap
Hong Jang-won, the first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service, also confirmed Friday that there were orders to arrest Han and others. He told lawmakers of the Assembly's National Defense Committee that Yoon directly ordered him to arrest key politicians right after declaring martial law.
According to Hong, Yoon told him "to take this as an opportunity to arrest and remove them all." Then the former counterintelligence commander called to give him the list of the politicians, which included Han, main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) leader Rep. Lee Jae-myung, Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik and minor opposition Rebuilding Korea Party leader Rep. Cho Kuk, among others.
Regarding Han's change of stance to support the impeachment, the DPK leader welcomed it, stating that it is better late than never.
"I urge the PPP to respect the will of the people and not drift away from the course of history," Lee said in a special statement.
Saying Yoon misused his power to solidify his position, Lee said, "We need to remove him from duty as soon as possible, and take steps of investigation, arrest, indictment and punishment."
Later in the day, Yoon and Han held a closed-door meeting at the presidential residence upon Yoon's request.
According to political sources, chief presidential secretary Chung Jin-suk also attended the meeting.
President Yoon Suk Yeol and People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, center, hold talks at the presidential office in Seoul, Oct. 21. Courtesy of presidential office
After the meeting, Han reportedly told ruling party lawmakers that the president hadn't given any indication that this decision should be reversed, adding that he still believes that Yoon must be suspended from his duties.
Han also reportedly mentioned that the president told him that he had not given any instructions to arrest politicians.
"It seems that the president is not considering any special follow-up measures," Han told lawmakers of his party during their meeting at the National Assembly.
During their previous meeting on Wednesday, hours after the lifting of martial law, Yoon was said to have asserted that the move was aimed to prevent the DPK's reckless impeachment actions against government officials, and emphasized that he has done nothing wrong.
Former Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun delivers a congratulatory speech during a commissioning ceremony in Gwangju, Gyeonggi Province, Nov. 29. Yonhap
Meanwhile, then-Army Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun explained the situation during the martial law period in a YouTube video.
On the show hosted by Rep. Kim Byung-joo of the DPK, Kwak stated that former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, who is believed to be the mastermind behind the martial law declaration, ordered the removal of lawmakers from the Assembly and that's why troops were dispatched there.
"I became aware of the martial law declaration through media reports. (I was just told that) about 20 minutes before the public announcement, the former defense minister instructed us to prepare for a situation," he said.
"It was clear that forcibly removing lawmakers would constitute an illegal act, and those carrying out such orders would bear legal responsibility. I did not issue such orders, despite knowing that this could constitute disobedience. Rather, I instructed the special forces against entering the main chamber (of the Assembly where lawmakers were voting to repeal martial law)," he further explained.
The former commander said he explicitly ordered that live ammunition should not be distributed to the forces to protect the safety of people at the Assembly.
Regarding the troops' entry into the Assembly building by breaking a window, Kwak said they chose to enter that way to avoid harming the people who were blocking them.
When asked whether he received direct orders from Yoon, Kwak said he received a single call asking about the battalion's location.
"There will be no further declarations of martial law," he pledged. "Even if such orders were issued, I would refuse to carry them out."
Regarding the current situation, the defense ministry suspended the duties for some senior military officers, including Kwak and Yeo, at around 4 p.m. Friday.
The Korea Times · by 2024-12-06 17:28 | Law & Crime · December 6, 2024
8. Army special warfare commander says he defied order to drag out lawmakers
Our Korean Special Forces brothers appear to do the right thing to uphold the rule of law and protect the democratic republic. However, LTG Kwak has been relieved and reassigned to the Capital Corps.
I never served with LTG Kwak and only just met him for the first time when I was in Korea last month just before Thanksgiving. He seemed like a good commander and I hope these reports are acurate becasue the ROK Special Wafare Command and specicially te 07th Speicla Mission Group (the national mission force of Korea) appears to have played a key role in eventually not stopping the action of the national Assembly and then complying with their vote to lift martial law.
Army special warfare commander says he defied order to drag out lawmakers | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Lee Haye-ah · December 6, 2024
SEOUL, Dec. 6 (Yonhap) -- The chief of the Army Special Warfare Command said Friday he defied an order from then Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to drag out lawmakers from the National Assembly building during martial law operations this week.
Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-keun gave the response when asked by opposition lawmakers what instructions he received from his superiors when troops were sent into the National Assembly following President Yoon Suk Yeol's declaration of martial law Tuesday.
"I was ordered by then Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to pull people inside the National Assembly building outside," the commander said at the unit's headquarters.
"I did not fulfill that task even though I knew it would be insubordination because based on my judgment, dragging lawmakers out was clearly an illegal act," he said.
When asked what orders he gave to his unit, the commander said he prohibited giving live ammunition to individual soldiers as he witnessed "unjustified scenes" during the deployment.
Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-keun, chief of the Army Special Warfare Command (Yonhap)
hague@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Lee Haye-ah · December 6, 2024
9. S. Korean three senior commanders removed over emergency martial law allegations
Excerpts:
The Ministry of National Defense announced on the afternoon of December 6, “In response to the current situation, we have reassigned key senior officers, including Lieutenant General Lee Jin-woo, Lieutenant General Kwak Jong-geun, and Lieutenant General Yeo In-hyung, to separate postings to suspend their official duties.”
The ministry further stated, “Lieutenant General Lee has been reassigned to the Ground Operations Command, Lieutenant General Kwak to the Capital Corps, and Lieutenant General Yeo to the Ministry of National Defense, where they will remain on standby.”
In addition, the ministry announced the appointments of acting commanders for the vacated posts: Lieutenant General Kim Ho-bok as Acting Commander of the Capital Defense Command, Major General Park Sung-jae as Acting Commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, and Major General Lee Kyung-min as Acting Director of the Defense Counterintelligence Command.
S. Korean three senior commanders removed over emergency martial law allegations
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2024/12/06/GSEC6HPHN5HZFEJNS7K2V3DOLU/
By Yang Ji-ho,
Lee Jung-soo
Published 2024.12.06. 17:16
Three top military commanders were relieved of their posts and reassigned on December 6, following allegations of their involvement in President Yoon Suk-yeol's controversial emergency martial law declaration earlier this week. From left: Lieutenant General Lee Jin-woo, Lieutenant General Kwak Jong-geun and Lieutenant General Yeo In-hyung. /Yonhap News
On Dec. 6, three senior military commanders were relieved of their duties following their alleged involvement in President Yoon Suk-yeol’s emergency martial law declaration on Dec. 3.
The Ministry of National Defense announced on the afternoon of December 6, “In response to the current situation, we have reassigned key senior officers, including Lieutenant General Lee Jin-woo, Lieutenant General Kwak Jong-geun, and Lieutenant General Yeo In-hyung, to separate postings to suspend their official duties.”
The ministry further stated, “Lieutenant General Lee has been reassigned to the Ground Operations Command, Lieutenant General Kwak to the Capital Corps, and Lieutenant General Yeo to the Ministry of National Defense, where they will remain on standby.”
In addition, the ministry announced the appointments of acting commanders for the vacated posts: Lieutenant General Kim Ho-bok as Acting Commander of the Capital Defense Command, Major General Park Sung-jae as Acting Commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, and Major General Lee Kyung-min as Acting Director of the Defense Counterintelligence Command.
Meanwhile, it was also reported that Han Dong-hoon, leader of the People Power Party, urged President Yoon Suk-yeol to dismiss Lieutenant General Yeo and other implicated commanders during their meeting earlier that day.
South Korea
Yoon Suk-yeol
Martial Law
The
10. Exclusive: "Round everyone up" Yoon ordered the NIS to arrest politicians after martial law declaration
Apparently both the director of the intelligence service (NIS)and the deputy refused these orders (though there will be continuing conflicting reports over whether such orders were given), But the bottom line is that the key institutions in the government have appeared to side with the rule of law and protection of the democratic republic.
Excerpts:
The source added that President Yoon contacted Deputy Director Hong directly, bypassing NIS Director Cho Tae-yong, because Cho had refused to comply with similar orders from the president. “Since the director did not comply, the president instructed the deputy director instead,” the source said. This is reportedly not the first time Yoon has given direct orders to Hong.
On the night Yoon imposed martial law, he deemed Hong’s refusal to arrest politicians “insubordination” and ordered him sacked. The NIS initially did not respond to requests for clarification.
But on Dec. 6, Hong confirmed that Yoon called him around 10:53 p.m. after declaring martial law on Dec. 3 and ordered him to “use this opportunity to round everyone up. Wipe everything clean.” The list included PPP leader Han, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, and other politicians such as Kim Min-seok, Park Chan-dae, Jeong Cheong-rae, and Cho Kuk. Hong also recalled names such as former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Kim Myeong-su, journalist Kim Ou-Joon, and National Election Commission chairperson Kwon Soon-il.
Upon hearing the instructions, Hong reportedly thought, “This is insane,” and stopped taking notes after some point.
Exclusive: "Round everyone up" Yoon ordered the NIS to arrest politicians after martial law declaration
NIS Deputy Director Hong Jang-won turned down Yoon's request to arrest PPP leader Han Dong-hoon and other politicians
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2024/12/06/OJPB5ZRUR5EDPMN3OTBQ73JRDA/
By Kim Min-Seo,
Lee Jae-eun
Published 2024.12.06. 15:22
Illustrated by Kim Sung-gyu
South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol ordered National Intelligence Service (NIS) First Deputy Director Hong Jang-won to arrest politicians, including People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, on Dec. 3 when he abruptly declared martial law. When Hong refused to comply, Yoon allegedly ordered his dismissal, multiple intelligence sources told the Chosunilbo on Dec. 5.
President Yoon called Hong late on Dec. 3, instructing him to collaborate with the Defense Counterintelligence Command to detain Han, according to people with knowledge of the matter. “The president personally called Deputy Director Hong and gave instructions, but Hong declined, citing the NIS’s lack of organizational capability, personnel, and means to carry out such an order,” a source said.
The source added that President Yoon contacted Deputy Director Hong directly, bypassing NIS Director Cho Tae-yong, because Cho had refused to comply with similar orders from the president. “Since the director did not comply, the president instructed the deputy director instead,” the source said. This is reportedly not the first time Yoon has given direct orders to Hong.
On the night Yoon imposed martial law, he deemed Hong’s refusal to arrest politicians “insubordination” and ordered him sacked. The NIS initially did not respond to requests for clarification.
But on Dec. 6, Hong confirmed that Yoon called him around 10:53 p.m. after declaring martial law on Dec. 3 and ordered him to “use this opportunity to round everyone up. Wipe everything clean.” The list included PPP leader Han, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, and other politicians such as Kim Min-seok, Park Chan-dae, Jeong Cheong-rae, and Cho Kuk. Hong also recalled names such as former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Kim Myeong-su, journalist Kim Ou-Joon, and National Election Commission chairperson Kwon Soon-il.
Upon hearing the instructions, Hong reportedly thought, “This is insane,” and stopped taking notes after some point.
martial law crisis
South Korea
Yoon Suk-yeol
11. Acting defense minister: no second martial law under any circumstances
Perhaps not for political purposes.
But what happens if north Korea decides to invade the South? Martial will be necessary then.
Acting defense minister: no second martial law under any circumstances
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2024/12/06/JD2POK64EFEBTAODCVFBKOYHFE/
By Yang Ji-ho,
Park Su-hyeon
Published 2024.12.06. 14:20
Acting Defense Minister Kim Seon-ho answers questions from lawmakers at the National Assembly on Dec. 5, 2024./News1
South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense stated it would not comply with any potential request from President Yoon Suk-yeol for a second martial law declaration.South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense has vowed to reject any potential request from President Yoon Suk-yeol to declare martial law for a second time.
Acting Defense Minister Kim Seon-ho addressed the issue during a Dec. 6 briefing at the ministry’s headquarters in Yongsan, Seoul.
“The claims about preparations for a ‘second martial law,’ raised earlier today, are entirely unfounded,” Kim said. “Even if such a request were made, the Ministry of National Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would categorically refuse to comply.”
Kim apologized for the public unrest caused by the Dec. 3 martial law declaration. “We take full responsibility for the concerns and distress this situation has caused the public. Once again, I offer my sincerest apologies,” he said. The ministry will fully cooperate with the prosecution’s investigation into the matter, Kim added, including dispatching personnel from the Ministry of National Defense Prosecutor’s Office to support a joint probe.
The Center for Military Human Rights Korea, an advocacy group, claimed earlier in the day that several Army units had received “emergency assembly orders for commanders” ahead of Dec. 8, suggesting another martial law declaration was in the works. However, the Army dismissed the claims as groundless.
A Joint Chiefs of Staff official also urged caution regarding misinformation. “There is a significant amount of false information circulating that needs to be carefully scrutinized,” the official said.
12. NIS deputy names leaders targeted by Yoon after martial law declaration
We have to take all reporting with a grain of salt as many of the players will be spinning the nature of their involvement and their actions for obvious reasons. However, collectively, it seems that the government institutions held and sided with the rule of law and protection of the democratic republic.
Excerpts:
Hong said Yeo also mentioned additional targets, including another NEC member whose name he could not recall and the head of a major labor union, either the Federation of Korean Trade Unions or the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Hong reportedly reacted to Yeo’s instructions by thinking, “Yoon’s gone mad,” and stopped taking further notes. According to Rep. Kim, Yeo outlined plans to arrest first- and second-tier targets in phases, detain them at DCC facilities, and conduct investigations.
Hong stated he ended the call with Yeo but was deeply troubled, thinking, “This makes no sense.”
NIS deputy names leaders targeted by Yoon after martial law declaration
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2024/12/06/PQCEUXABFRBNTEYSOJRH4XEJYI/
By Kim Sang-yun,
Park Su-hyeon
Published 2024.12.06. 15:22
Hong Jang-won, first deputy director of South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS), leaves the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, after a briefing on martial law issues, Dec. 6, 2024./Newsis
Hong Jang-won, the first deputy director of South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS), testified on Dec. 6 that President Yoon Suk-yeol directed a sweeping crackdown following the Dec. 3 declaration of martial law.
According to Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) Rep. Kim Byung-kee, Hong revealed during a National Assembly session that President Yoon contacted him multiple times that day. At 8:22 p.m., Yoon reportedly instructed Hong to “stay alert” for an important discussion in one to two hours. At 10:53 p.m., shortly after martial law was announced, Yoon allegedly called again, saying, “Round them all up. Clean everything up.”
Yoon reportedly assured Hong, “I’ll give the NIS anti-communist investigation authority. For now, assist the Defense Counterintelligence Command (DCC). Provide whatever support is needed—funding, manpower, anything.”
Hong testified that Yeo In-hyeong, head of the DCC, later gave him a list of individuals targeted for arrest. The list reportedly included prominent figures such as:
- DPK leader Lee Jae-myung
- National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik
- People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon
- DPK Rep. Kim Min-seok
- DPK floor leader Park Chan-dae
- National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee Chair Jung Chung-rae
- Cho Kuk Innovation Party leader Cho Kuk
- Liberal journalist Kim Ou-joon
- Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su
- Kim Min-woong, brother of Rep. Kim Min-seok
- Former National Election Commission (NEC) Chairman Kwon Soon-il
Hong said Yeo also mentioned additional targets, including another NEC member whose name he could not recall and the head of a major labor union, either the Federation of Korean Trade Unions or the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Hong reportedly reacted to Yeo’s instructions by thinking, “Yoon’s gone mad,” and stopped taking further notes. According to Rep. Kim, Yeo outlined plans to arrest first- and second-tier targets in phases, detain them at DCC facilities, and conduct investigations.
Hong stated he ended the call with Yeo but was deeply troubled, thinking, “This makes no sense.”
13. N. Korea's state media remains silent about martial law turmoil in S. Korea
Not a surprise. The Propaganda and Agitation department is trying to figure out a way to public spin those for the regime's overt political warfare strategy.
However, what I would like to know is what orders the regime is giving to the United Front Department and the 225th Bureau to operations in the South to support the regime's covert political warfare strategy to conduct subversion against the ROK government and South Korean society.
(LEAD) N. Korea's state media remains silent about martial law turmoil in S. Korea | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Soo-yeon · December 5, 2024
(ATTN: UPDATES with more details from last 2 paras)
SEOUL, Dec. 5 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's state media on Thursday kept mum about President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived imposition of emergency martial law and its political repercussions.
Yoon abruptly declared martial law late Tuesday, accusing the opposition of paralyzing the government with "anti-state" activities. He lifted the decree hours after the National Assembly voted to reject it.
As of 9 a.m., none of the North's state media, including the Rodong Sinmun, the North's main newspaper, and the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), had published any reports related to the martial law turmoil.
The Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper targeting the domestic audience, also did not carry articles about South Korean protesters' anti-government rallies calling for Yoon's ouster in its Thursday edition. The paper has published such reports almost every day since late last month.
This file image, captured from footage of North Korea's state-run Korea Central Television on June 26, 2023, shows a rally staged by North Koreans and students in Pyongyang against the United States on the occasion of the 73rd anniversary of the outbreak of the 1950-53 Korean War. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)
Experts said North Korea may try to use the martial law turmoil as a propaganda tool to arouse its people's animosity toward South Korea.
In March 2017, the KCNA and the state-run Korean Central Television swiftly reported the impeachment of then South Korean President Park Geun-hye, about two hours after the Constitutional Court upheld it.
In May 2004, when the court rejected the parliamentary impeachment of then President Roh Moo-hyun, the North's state media carried a related press statement, issued by the North's committee in charge of inter-Korean affairs, two days after the court ruling.
Seoul's unification ministry said North Korea did not always show sensitive responses to South Korea's grave political situations in the past, citing South Koreans holding candlelight vigils in 2016 and the developments leading to Park's impeachment.
"As North Korea has watched how South Korea's democracy has evolved dynamically, the North may be aware that it is not realistic and possible for Pyongyang to intervene in (the South's situation)," a ministry official told reporters over North Korea's silence about the martial law fallout.
sooyeon@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Soo-yeon · December 5, 2024
14. N. Korea to hold key parliamentary meeting 2 days after Trump's inauguration
This could provide key indicators on how the regime will deal with the Trump administration (and potentially a new ROK administration if Yoon is impeached and removed).
N. Korea to hold key parliamentary meeting 2 days after Trump's inauguration
The Korea Times · December 6, 2024
The 11th session of the 14th Supreme People's Assembly is held in Pyeongyang in this image provided by the Korean Central News Agency, Oct. 25. Yonhap
North Korea will hold a key parliamentary meeting to discuss a constitutional amendment and other issues, two days after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office next month, according to the North's state media Friday.
North Korea decided to convene the 12th session of the 14th Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) on Jan. 22 at a plenary meeting of the SPA standing committee held the previous day, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
The KCNA said that the upcoming session will address a range of issues, including "revising some provisions of the Socialist Constitution."
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered a constitutional revision during the parliamentary session in January to reflect his previous declaration of inter-Korean ties as "hostile," pledging not to seek reconciliation and unification in the constitution.
The upcoming session will be closely watched for any follow-up details on a constitutional amendment, particularly regarding provisions defining the country's territory in connection with Kim's directive.
On Oct. 15, North Korea demolished sections of the roads and train tracks connected to South Korea — the Gyeongui Line and the Donghae Line — and later said its constitution defines South Korea as a "hostile state," suggesting the constitution was amended during a parliamentary meeting earlier that month in accordance with Kim's order.
The KCNA said the upcoming January session will also address the state budget for 2025, the adoption of laws on the building materials industry and offshore farming, as well as organization matters, among other issues, without providing further details.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un delivers a speech during a meeting of the Supreme People's Assembly at the Mansudae Assembly Hall in this photo published by the Korean Central News Agency, Jan. 15. Yonhap
The scheduling of the SPA meeting two days after Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20 raises the possibility that the North Korean leader may disclose his country's policy toward the U.S. in response to Trump's second term. North Korea has not yet made any public reference to Trump's reelection.
Hong Min, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification, predicted that Kim's speech during the session would be fine-tuned based on an analysis of the initial policy directions of Trump's second term, as indicted in the incoming president's inauguration address.
"Scheduling the meeting immediately after Trump's inauguration appears intended to draw attention to North Korea's message toward the U.S. in Kim Jong-un's parliamentary speech," Hong said.
The SPA is the highest organ of state power under the North's constitution, but it actually only rubber-stamps decisions by the ruling Workers' Party of Korea. (Yonhap)
The Korea Times · December 6, 2024
15. S. Korea, U.S., Japan to hold talks on N.K. nuclear provocation next week
My worry is that the martial law debacle will impact the important trilateral cooperation that has been improving in recent years. So this is a positive step.
S. Korea, U.S., Japan to hold talks on N.K. nuclear provocation next week | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Kang Yoon-seung · December 6, 2024
SEOUL, Dec. 6 (Yonhap) -- South Korea, the United States and Japan will hold a high-level meeting in Tokyo next week to discuss North Korea's nuclear provocations, Seoul's foreign ministry said Friday.
Vice Foreign Minister for Strategy and Intelligence Cho Koo-rae will meet U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink and Hiroyuki Namazu, Japan's assistant minister for Asian and Oceanian Affairs, on Monday, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
During the meeting, the three officials will discuss ways to address North Korea's potential provocations, the recent military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow, and other regional issues in Northeast Asia, the ministry said.
South Korea is also widely anticipated to brief its counterparts on the domestic political situation, including the aftermath of President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived declaration of martial law earlier this week.
This undated file photo shows the sign of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Seoul. (Yonhap)
colin@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Kang Yoon-seung · December 6, 2024
16. The Six Hours of Chaos That Dragged South Korea Into Martial Law and Back
The Six Hours of Chaos That Dragged South Korea Into Martial Law and Back
How lawmakers fought past soldiers to break into the legislature and overturn the shock imposition of martial rule
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/the-six-hours-of-chaos-that-dragged-south-korea-into-martial-law-and-back-f09591dc?utm_content=buffereb714&utm
By Dasl YoonFollow and Soobin Kim
Dec. 5, 2024 8:19 am ET
SEOUL—At around 10:30 p.m. Tuesday night, Wi Sung-lac, a prominent member of South Korea’s opposition Democratic Party, stared in shock at his television as the country’s president read a brief statement declaring martial law.
Wi, who grew up at a time when generals ruled in Seoul, knew he had to do two things: avoid arrest and figure out how to join fellow lawmakers in resisting Yoon Suk Yeol’s effort to turn back the clock on Korean democracy.
The 70-year-old diplomat-turned-politician grabbed his passport and a stash of U.S. dollars and pulled on his overcoat, a face mask and a hunter’s cap. He made a short phone call to his wife, warning her that “anything could happen,” and hurried out into the freezing night.
In the chaotic hours that followed, the nation’s political fate hung in the balance. It was a literal race for democracy: Enough of the country’s 300 lawmakers had to hold a vote to nullify Yoon’s martial order before the military locked down the National Assembly building.
You may also like
1:01
Paused
0:04
/
3:33
Tap For Sound
South Korean lawmakers filed a motion to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol a day after he declared martial law, upending political stability for a close U.S. ally. The National Assembly will vote on the motion by Saturday. Photo: Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images
In Yoon’s martial-law decree, the right-wing president said opposition parties had made the country vulnerable to North Korean “communist forces,” and he claimed emergency powers to censor the media and bar political activity—including parliamentary votes.
It was the kind of step not taken since the last military dictator to run South Korea was sidelined in 1987 in the face of mass pro-democracy protests.
As Wi and other opposition lawmakers hustled to the National Assembly building on the Han River that runs through Seoul, crowds began to gather outside the legislative compound, facing off with police in riot gear guarding the perimeter.
“It’s late, but the people must protect the nation,” opposition leader Lee Jae-myung said during a livestream, urging citizens to turn out. Some arrived on bicycles. Others sprinted from taxi cabs stopped in the middle of the street. Soon there were thousands of people.
‘The soldiers are coming’
Wi, who had arranged for his driver to secretly pick him up at a 7-Eleven near his home out of fear that soldiers would stop him, pushed his way past police at the gates of the National Assembly. Lee had to scale a tall fence to get in. Protesters lifted Jo Seoung-lae, another Democratic Party politician, over a fence. Democratic Party spokeswoman Ahn Gwi-ryeong grabbed the barrel of a rifle that a member of the security forces had aimed at her chest, shoving the weapon aside.
“Are you not ashamed of yourself?” she shouted at the soldier, who turned around and walked away.
Gen. Paul LaCamera, head of the U.S. forces stationed in South Korea, warned American soldiers on Thursday to steer clear of the protests and to convey any travel plans to their superiors in case “something unexpected” occurred.
Police try to prevent people from passing through a turnstile at the National Assembly. Photo: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty Images
Troops on the move at the compound. Photo: kim hong-ji/Reuters
By the time 190 lawmakers had gathered in the voting hall of the legislature, special-forces soldiers had also arrived at the assembly compound on army helicopters.
Soldiers started smashing windows in an effort to gain entry to the main assembly building. Staffers tried to barricade doors with whatever they could find—boxes, tables and chairs. Some sprayed fire extinguishers, trying to keep the troops at bay.
Nervous lawmakers urged the speaker to get the vote under way. “Please be quick!” someone shouted. “The soldiers are coming!” another said.
National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, of the opposition party, urged patience, warning that Yoon, a former chief prosecutor of South Korea, could dismiss the vote on a technicality if proper procedures hadn’t been followed.
Using the assembly’s electronic system, lawmakers cast their votes in a cavernous room where a large South Korean flag sits behind the lectern. They needed a majority vote to pass the motion. Up flashed the result: 190 in favor of overturning the president’s decree, zero against.
Crowds gather outside the legislature in response to the president’s decree. Photo: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty Images
A South Korean flag flies as citizens take to the streets. Photo: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty Images
Included in the 190 were 18 votes from members of Yoon’s governing People Power Party. They came at the urging of party head Han Dong-hoon, once a close ally of the president who had previously served as Yoon’s justice minister. Han called the president’s decision unconstitutional.
“It was unanimous,” Wi said. “It was passionate, patriotic, filled with enthusiasm to defend democracy.”
Applause broke out inside the room. Speaker Woo ordered soldiers and police officers to leave the premises. The troops began pulling back.
Celebrating the end
Lawmakers stayed in the main hall, waiting for Yoon to assemble his cabinet, accept the National Assembly’s decision and formally lift martial law.
Outside, protesters also held their ground into the morning, sharing hand warmers and sitting mats. The shelves of a nearby convenience store had been stripped of food by hungry demonstrators. Food carts selling fish cakes and chicken skewers set up nearby, their owners cracking jokes with protesters.
When Lim Gayoung, a 40-year-old researcher, arrived on the scene after the vote, she found a festive atmosphere, with people singing, chanting and getting fried chicken delivered.
“No matter who you voted for,” Lim said, “martial law in this day and age is nonsense.”
At around 4:30 a.m., Yoon appeared for another televised address.
“Last night, I declared martial law with a resolute will to counter antistate forces trying to paralyze national affairs and collapse the liberal democratic constitutional order,” Yoon said. “However the National Assembly has requested the lifting of martial law, so I have withdrawn the troops.”
National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik passes a resolution demanding the immediate lifting of martial law. Photo: Yonhap/AFP/Getty Images
Officials remove furniture barricades from the doors of the National Assembly building. Photo: kim hong-ji/Reuters
Yoon’s cabinet upheld the National Assembly’s vote about half an hour later. The next day, his entire cabinet—with the exception of Yoon himself and the prime minister—offered to resign. Yoon has accepted the offer from only one: the country’s defense minister, who according to Seoul’s military recommended the use of martial law to South Korea’s leader.
On Wednesday, Democratic Party lawmakers put forth a motion in parliament to impeach Yoon. The vote could take place as soon as Saturday. Yoon’s People Power Party said it would support him in the vote. Han, the party head, has asked Yoon to leave the party.
The opposition needs at least eight of the 108 legislators from Yoon’s party to back the bill for it to pass with the required two-thirds majority. A successful vote would kick off a monthslong process to ultimately remove Yoon from office, though his presidential powers would immediately be ceded to the prime minister. The country’s constitutional court next needs to certify the impeachment after reviewing its legal merits.
It took just six hours for South Korean martial law to be declared, enacted, nullified and lifted. Many citizens awoke Thursday morning unaware anything had happened. That swift repudiation was a win for democracy, said Han Jeoung-ae, a Democratic Party lawmaker, whose husband shoved her out the door after Yoon’s declaration and who had been one of the first legislators to arrive to vote.
“I still can’t believe this happened on a night in 2024,” she said.
Jiyoung Sohn and Timothy W. Martin contributed to this article.
Write to Dasl Yoon at dasl.yoon@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications
Ahn Gwi-ryeong is a spokeswoman for South Korea’s Democratic Party. A previous version of this article incorrectly said she is a lawmaker. (Corrected on Dec. 5)
17. [12/3 Coup Breaking News 5] Full text of the impeachment motion against the President (Yoon Seok-yeol)
This is a Google Translation of a Korean article. An interesting read for those who want to get into the details.
But this was not a coup. No one was deposing the incumbent political leader. Korea had two coups, one in 1961 and the second in 1979/1980. This was not a coup.
“A coup is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership.”
https://www.sisain.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=54495
society
[12/3 Coup Breaking News 5] Full text of the impeachment motion against the President (Yoon Seok-yeol)
SisaIN Editorial DepartmentView other articles
-
Posted 2024.12.05 00:49 Lake 898
I will read the article to you.
32:43
00:00
32:43
1.0x
The six opposition parties visited the National Assembly Legislative Affairs Office at 2:43 p.m. on December 4 and submitted a motion to impeach President Yoon Seok-yeol. ⓒNational Assembly Photojournalism Team
The six opposition parties, including the Democratic Party of Korea, the Fatherland Innovation Party, the New Reform Party, the Progressive Party, the Basic Income Party, and the Social Democratic Party, submitted a motion to impeach President Yoon Seok-yeol to the National Assembly on December 4.
At 2:43 p.m. that day, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min and Innovation Party floor leader Hwang Un-ha visited the National Assembly’s Legislative Affairs Office and submitted an impeachment motion. All 191 lawmakers from the six opposition parties, excluding the People Power Party, participated in proposing the impeachment motion. The Democratic Party and others plan to report the impeachment motion to the plenary session on December 5 and vote on it on December 6-7. Once the impeachment motion is reported to the plenary session, it will be voted on within 72 hours after the report 24 hours later.
Below is the full text of the impeachment motion against President Yoon Seok-yeol submitted by the opposition party.
We impeach President Yoon Seok-yeol.
order
In accordance with Article 65 of the Constitution and Article 130 of the National Assembly Act, President Yoon Seok-yeol is impeached.
Accused
Name: Yoon Seok-yeol
Position: President
Grounds for impeachment
Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea declares, “The Republic of Korea is a democratic republic. The sovereignty of the Republic of Korea resides in the people, and all state authority emanates from the people.” It proclaims the principle of popular sovereignty. The President, as the head of state and head of the executive branch, is entrusted with power through direct election by the sovereign people, has the duty to observe and protect the Constitution established by the people (Article 66 of the Constitution), and has the duty to faithfully perform the duties of the President (Article 69 of the Constitution). In addition, the President shall command the Armed Forces within the scope of protecting the independence of the fatherland, territorial integrity, and national continuity as prescribed by the Constitution and laws (Articles 66 and 74 of the Constitution), and shall not infringe upon the freedom and rights of the people by unjustly abusing his power (Article 69 of the Constitution). This constitutional spirit is that the president is a “being of the rule of law and law-abiding,” and “a president who disregards the Constitution denies and destroys his own power and authority” (Constitutional Court Decision 2004HunNa1 dated May 14, 2004), and thus loses his qualifications as president.
Meanwhile, Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that when the President violates the Constitution or laws in the performance of his duties, the National Assembly may pass a motion for impeachment. When the President, who is the guardian and example of the Constitution, violates the Constitution and laws and reaches self-destructive self-denial, the National Assembly, which is directly entrusted with power by the people, restores the constitutional order by passing a motion for impeachment and removing the President from office. This is also the constitutional duty of the National Assembly, which represents the people.
However, President Yoon Seok-yeol has violated the Constitution and the law extensively and seriously in the course of carrying out his duties, as seen below.
On December 3, 2024, at around 22:28, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared martial law, which is null and void in violation of the Constitution and the law, despite failing to meet any of the requirements for martial law required by the Constitution. As a result, he violated the principle of popular sovereignty (Article 1 of the Constitution), the principle of separation of powers, the political neutrality of public officials including military personnel (Article 5, Paragraph 2, Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution), the freedom of political party system and political party activities (Article 8 of the Constitution), the freedom of residence and relocation (Article 14 of the Constitution), the freedom of occupation (Article 15 of the Constitution), the freedom of expression including the press, publication, assembly, and association (Article 21 of the Constitution), the right of workers to collective action (Article 33 of the Constitution), representative democracy (Article 41 of the Constitution), the privilege of immunity from arrest (Article 44 of the Constitution), the right of members of the National Assembly to vote (Article 49 of the Constitution), the President's duty to protect the Constitution (Article 66 of the Constitution) and the duty to faithfully perform the duties of the President (Article 69 of the Constitution, They have violated the Constitution by infringing or violating the National Civil Service Act (Article 56), the duty of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to protect the independence and territory of the country and the continuity of the state by law (Article 74 of the Constitution), the requirements and procedures for martial law and the procedures for lifting martial law under the Constitution (Article 77 of the Constitution), and the right of the State Council members to deliberate on the matter (Article 89, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution).
The president's emergency power to declare martial law, granted in unavoidable circumstances in preparation for a national emergency, was abused despite the clear insufficiencies of its requirements (Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Martial Law Act), and the State Council deliberated on it (Article 2, Paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Act), and the president violated the law by violating the duty to promptly respond to the National Assembly's decision to lift martial law (Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Martial Law Act).
In addition, President Yoon Seok-yeol's declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024, was clearly inadequate in itself, but in order to avoid the impending investigation by the people and the National Assembly into the illegalities of himself and his family, he declared martial law that was unconstitutional and illegal, illegally mobilizing the military for political purposes and seriously violating the people's basic rights, and attempted to blockade the National Assembly, the only constitutional institution under martial law, by illegally mobilizing the military and police, thereby rendering the constitutional institution inoperable. This constitutes a serious crime that cannot be forgiven as a crime of subversion of constitutional order by disrupting the Constitution (Articles 87 and 89 of the Criminal Act).
From the perspective of protecting the Constitution, President Yoon Seok-yeol's above-mentioned unconstitutional and illegal acts threaten the fundamental order of liberal democracy, which is an essential element of the Constitutional order of the Republic of Korea, trample on basic human rights, and destroy the principles of the rule of law and the essence of the parliamentary and political party systems. They are acts of destruction of the Constitution and an act of betrayal against the sovereign people, which justifies his removal from office through impeachment.
Accordingly, the National Assembly, as the representative of the people, proposes an impeachment motion in the name of the people to protect the Constitution and restore the damaged constitutional order by removing President Yoon Seok-yeol.
The specific grounds for impeachment are as follows.
The six opposition parties, including the Democratic Party of Korea, the Fatherland Innovation Party, the New Reform Party, the Progressive Party, the Basic Income Party, and the Social Democratic Party, submitted a motion to impeach President Yoon Seok-yeol to the National Assembly on December 4. ⓒNational Assembly Photojournalism Group
1. Circumstances of the incident
The unconstitutional and illegal martial law declarations by President Yoon Seok-yeol are organized by time period as follows.
◇December 3, 2024
▲10:29 p.m.
-President Yoon Seok-yeol declares martial law
▲10:40 p.m.
-Democratic Party, emergency martial law declaration, National Assembly emergency convocation
▲10:57 p.m.
-National Assembly Guard “Controlling Access to the National Assembly”
▲11pm
-People Power Party convenes general meeting of members to declare martial law
▲11:28 p.m.
-Martial Law Command issues Proclamation No. 1, “Prohibit all political activities… Control all media and publications”
◇December 4, 2024
▲00:08 AM
- National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, emergency press conference… “Responding to the President’s declaration of martial law according to the National Assembly’s constitutional procedures”
▲00:35 AM
- National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik sits in the speaker’s seat in the National Assembly plenary hall
▲00:39 AM
-Martial law troops destroy glass windows of People Power Party representative's office and enter National Assembly building
▲00:47 AM
- National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, Declaration of the opening of the plenary session in response to the declaration of martial law
▲1:00 AM
- National Assembly to table ‘Resolution demanding lifting of martial law’
▲1:02 AM
-National Assembly passes resolution to lift martial law with unanimous approval from all 190 members present
▲2:00 AM
- National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik sends a notice of lifting martial law to the President and the Ministry of National Defense and requests a declaration of lifting martial law through a broadcast in the plenary session hall
▲4:00 AM
- National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik again requests the President to lift martial law and make a public announcement
▲4:30 AM
-President Yoon Seok-yeol approves proposal to lift martial law at Cabinet meeting
▲5:40 AM
-President Yoon Seok-yeol announces lifting of martial law
2. Execution of duties
As a ground for impeachment, “in the performance of duties” applies to misconduct by public officials that violates the essence of performance of duties, so regardless of whether it is unconstitutional or invalid because it does not actually meet the requirements, if it has the outward appearance of performance of duties, it should be considered to be performance of duties (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da26805, January 14, 2005, etc.).
In light of this, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared martial law, which is an emergency power granted to the president by the Constitution in response to a national emergency that is urgently needed to protect the independence and territory of the country and maintain the continuity of the nation. Therefore, since this is in itself an exercise of the presidential authority granted by the Constitution, it can be said that it naturally constitutes the performance of official duties regardless of whether the requirement is flawed and thus unconstitutional or invalid.
3. Acts that violate the Constitution or laws
A. Unconstitutional and invalid martial law declaration
1) President Yoon Seok-yeol's declaration of martial law
At around 22:29 on December 3, 2024, President Yoon Seok-yeol held a press conference in the briefing room of the Blue House in Yongsan, and made reckless remarks such as ① 22 impeachment motions proposed since the inauguration of the government and 10 impeachment motions proposed only in the 22nd National Assembly, ② a drug paradise and panic in the people's livelihood due to major budget cuts, ③ budgetary abuses such as cuts in the budget for various government projects, ④ an attempt to overthrow the free democratic system by paralyzing the national system of the National Assembly, which has become a den of criminals, ⑤ the activities and purges of pro-North Korea anti-state forces, and declared martial law out of the blue and outrageously in the middle of the night in the peaceful Republic of Korea.
2) Requirements for declaring martial law
When martial law is declared, special measures can be taken with regard to the warrant system, freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association, and the authority of the government and the courts as prescribed by law (Article 77, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution). When martial law is declared, the martial law commander is in charge of all administrative and judicial affairs in the martial law area (Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Martial Law Act). When martial law is declared in this way, it has a very serious impact on the constitutional order, as it brings about significant changes to the national system of the Republic of Korea and imposes significant restrictions on the basic rights of the people as prescribed by the Constitution. Therefore, the declaration of martial law must be strictly observed in its requirements and procedures. The substantive and procedural requirements of martial law as prescribed by the Constitution and the Martial Law Act are specifically reviewed as follows.
First, regarding the substantive requirements for martial law, Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the requirements for martial law are “when it is necessary to respond to military needs or to maintain public safety and order in time of war, incident or similar national emergency,” and the Martial Law Act stipulates that the requirements for martial law are “when there is a state of engagement with the enemy or social order is extremely disturbed and the performance of administrative and judicial functions is significantly difficult, when it is necessary to respond to military needs or to maintain public safety and order in time of war, incident or similar national emergency.”
Second, regarding the procedural requirements for martial law, Article 77, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution and Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Martial Law Act stipulate that “When martial law has been declared, the President shall notify the National Assembly without delay.” Article 89, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution and Article 2, Paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Act stipulate that the declaration of martial law must be deliberated by the State Council, and Article 2, Paragraph 6 of the Martial Law Act stipulates that even the recommendation by the Minister of National Defense, who is the competent minister, must go through the Prime Minister, who supervises the executive branches under the order of the President, before recommending to the President the declaration of martial law.
3) An unconstitutional and illegal declaration that does not meet any of the requirements for martial law.
As mentioned above, martial law can only be declared in times of war or other national emergency when it is significantly difficult to maintain the normal functioning of constitutional institutions, military necessity, or public peace and order through normal means. However, President Yoon Seok-yeol clearly violated the Constitution and the law with his declaration of martial law this time, as follows:
First, prior to the declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024, there was absolutely no sign of a “wartime, incident, or similar national emergency” as stipulated in the Constitution, and there was no situation as stipulated in the Martial Law Act as “a state of wartime, incident, or similar national emergency in which there is a state of engagement with the enemy or where social order is extremely disrupted, making it significantly difficult to perform administrative and judicial functions.” During this period, the daily lives of South Koreans were peaceful, and citizens also went about their daily lives as usual, finishing their work and spending time with their families, relatives, and friends. In other words, not only was there no wartime or similar national emergency, but there were no signs of it either.
Second, President Yoon Seok-yeol did not comply with the National Assembly notification procedure at all, despite the fact that “when martial law is declared, it must be notified to the National Assembly without delay” according to Article 77, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution and Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Martial Law Act. He also did not comply with the mandatory deliberation of the State Council before declaring martial law. Even though his subordinate Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun said that he had recommended martial law to the accused, he still has not responded to the public’s demand to resolve suspicions about whether he reported it through the Prime Minister according to Article 2, Paragraph 6 of the Martial Law Act.
In this way, President Yoon Seok-yeol completely ignored the procedures such as legitimate suggestions from relevant State Council members, deliberation by the State Council, and notification to the National Assembly, and unilaterally accepted a recommendation for martial law from his subordinate, the Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, and declared it, committing an unacceptable procedural illegality by having even the Prime Minister and many State Council members learn of it through the President's martial law declaration broadcast in the middle of the night.
4) Sintering
In this way, President Yoon Seok-yeol's declaration of martial law this time is an unconstitutional and invalid declaration in itself, as it does not meet any of the substantive or procedural requirements.
B. Violation of the principle of national sovereignty (Article 1 of the Constitution) and the duty to protect the Constitution (Article 66 of the Constitution) due to the unconstitutional declaration of martial law
The sovereign of the Republic of Korea is the people, and no power that betrays the trust of the people can be exercised in the Republic of Korea. The president, who is directly elected by the people, and all public officials appointed by him, serve only the people who are the sovereign, and cannot engage in any power separate from the people. In this respect, the president, as the pinnacle of public officials, is also strongly required to serve the people more than any other public official.
This popular sovereignty can only be realized when the president fulfills his or her duties as stipulated in the Constitution. If the president neglects to understand the people's true will and reflect it in state affairs, and instead privatizes power to protect crimes committed by himself or herself, his or her spouse, or other relatives, this in itself constitutes a betrayal of the people's trust and is a self-denial that results in the loss of his or her qualifications as a public official.
Therefore, President Yoon Seok-yeol's act of mobilizing the military and turning it into a political weapon by declaring an unconstitutional martial law is an act that directly betrays the people who have suffered under the long military dictatorship, violates the principle of popular sovereignty, and neglects his duty to protect the Constitution.
D. Infringement or violation of the freedom of political parties and political party activities (Article 8 of the Constitution), freedom of residence and movement (Article 14 of the Constitution), freedom of occupation (Article 15 of the Constitution), freedom of expression including the press, publication, assembly, and association (Article 21 of the Constitution), workers' right to collective action (Article 33 of the Constitution), representative democracy (Article 41 of the Constitution), immunity from arrest (Article 44 of the Constitution), and voting rights of members of the National Assembly (Article 49 of the Constitution) due to unconstitutional martial law and martial law proclamation.
1) Proclamation of Proclamation No. 1
As mentioned above, President Yoon Seok-yeol’s surprise declaration of martial law in the middle of the night is in itself unconstitutional and invalid. Nevertheless, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared Proclamation No. 1 through the martial law commander without even notifying the National Assembly, and its contents are as follows.
2) Violation of the freedom of political party system and political activities (Article 8 of the Constitution)
The above proclamation No. 1 prohibits all political activities and party activities. However, neither the Constitution of the Republic of Korea nor the Martial Law Act grants the President or the Martial Law Commander who declared martial law the authority to prohibit political activities themselves. It only restricts some basic rights such as the freedom of residence and movement, freedom of expression, and the right to collective action, and allows the transfer of some of the judicial powers and the legislative powers of the National Assembly to the Martial Law Commander.
Democratic control of the President's declaration of martial law must be directly controlled by the National Assembly and the people in accordance with the Constitution and laws, and this must be absolutely guaranteed without interfering with the maintenance of order.
Nevertheless, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared a full ban on political parties and political activities through the above proclamation. Regardless of the unconstitutional martial law, the issuance of the relevant part of the above proclamation is a clear violation of the Constitution and the law.
3) Violation or infringement of the principle of separation of powers, representative democracy (Article 41 of the Constitution), immunity from arrest (Article 44 of the Constitution), and voting rights of members of the National Assembly (Article 49 of the Constitution)
The Constitution adopts a system of separation of powers, which separates the functions of the state into legislative, executive, and judicial branches in accordance with the principles of modern liberal democratic constitutions, and ensures mutual checks and balances (Constitutional Court 1992. 4. 28. 90헌바24, Casebook 4, 225, 229-230).
By interpreting and approving the inherent domains of the legislative, judicial, and administrative branches, it is intended to ensure that checks and balances operate to protect the fundamental rights of the people.
Accordingly, the President is permitted to use martial law powers to impose certain restrictions on the legislature (emergency orders, etc.) and the judiciary (arrest/detention, military trial for certain crimes, etc.) when faced with a national emergency such as wartime or other national emergencies, in order to protect the functions of constitutional institutions and to defend the nation or maintain public peace and order. However, this cannot harm their essential functions, and the National Assembly, which has democratic legitimacy, is permitted to directly control martial law, thereby preventing the President from abusing his martial law powers through the principle of separation of powers, which is checks and balances.
President Yoon Seok-yeol went beyond the unconstitutional declaration of martial law, and despite the fact that the Constitution and laws stipulate that martial law be notified to the National Assembly without delay when it is declared, he ignored the notification procedure and issued Proclamation No. 1, disregarded the National Assembly’s right to control martial law recognized by the Constitution and issued a proclamation completely banning National Assembly activities, and thereby infringed upon the right of the National Assembly, an individual constitutional body, to deliberate and vote on a bill to lift martial law. As a result, not only some opposition lawmakers, but also many ruling party lawmakers, including the ruling party’s negotiating group leader (floor leader), were prevented from attending rallies due to the military and police blockading the National Assembly.
Meanwhile, President Yoon Seok-yeol, through Proclamation No. 1, has completely banned the National Assembly, political parties, and political activities, and has mobilized the military and police to blockade the National Assembly, detain some lawmakers, and prohibit free entry and exit to the National Assembly in an attempt to perpetuate this suspension of constitutional rule, making it significantly dangerous for lawmakers to attend rallies demanding the lifting of martial law. This is an unconstitutional measure that directly violates the principle of separation of powers and infringes on the National Assembly members’ right to deliberate and vote and their right to immunity from arrest.
4) Violation of the fundamental rights of citizens, such as freedom of residence and movement (Article 14 of the Constitution), freedom of occupational choice (Article 15 of the Constitution), freedom of expression including press, publication, assembly, and association (Article 21 of the Constitution), and workers' right to collective action (Article 33 of the Constitution).
As examined above, this declaration of martial law does not even meet the minimum substantive and procedural requirements stipulated by the Constitution and laws, and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, and invalid from the beginning. Therefore, any restriction of basic rights based on it cannot be tolerated under the Constitution. Nevertheless, President Yoon Seok-yeol appointed his subordinate, the Army Chief of Staff, as martial law commander and declared Proclamation No. 1, ordering military control over the press and publications, prohibiting assembly and association, forcing doctors to return to hospitals and provide treatment within 48 hours, and prohibiting all strikes across all sectors, thereby directly and seriously violating the freedom of occupation and the workers’ right to collective action, which are naturally derived from the freedom of expression and the freedom of occupational choice.
Ra. Violation of the political neutrality of public officials (Article 5, Paragraph 2, Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution), the voting rights of members of the National Assembly (Article 49 of the Constitution), and the duty to command the Armed Forces under the law (Article 74 of the Constitution) due to illegal mobilization of military and police forces.
Political neutrality of the military is not only guaranteed but also required, and the President has a constitutional duty to comply with the Constitution and laws when commanding the military.
Nevertheless, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared martial law, which completely disregarded the procedures stipulated by the Constitution and the law, despite not having any of the requirements for declaring martial law, and then proceeded to illegally mobilize the military, blockade the National Assembly, and engage in unconstitutional political instrumentalization, including attempting to paralyze the National Assembly’s functions by having some of them storm the building. This can be said to be an act of sedition that ignores his duties as the head of state and head of the executive branch who is supposed to command the military according to the Constitution and the law. As a result, a large number of National Assembly members were unable to participate in the normal voting process, and armed airborne troops broke windows and stormed into the main building where the National Assembly conference room was located, leading to clashes with National Assembly security staff who were trying to block them, thereby impeding the normal functioning of the National Assembly.
B. Violation of the duty to faithfully perform the duties of the presidency (Article 69 of the Constitution, Article 56 of the National Civil Service Act)
The President is elected by the people and directly entrusted with power, swears an oath to abide by the Constitution and laws, and has a constitutional and legal duty to faithfully perform the duties assigned to him or her office and abide by the Constitution and laws. However, President Yoon Seok-yeol repeatedly vetoed the special prosecutor appointment bill for his or her spouse’s crimes, which is a matter of direct conflict of interest, in order to block the investigation into the alleged criminal involvement of himself, his or her spouse, and other family members, and eventually declared an unconstitutional martial law, mobilizing the military to trample on the Constitution, thereby abandoning his or her duty to defend the country and protect the people by faithfully performing his or her duties as a representative of the people while abiding by the Constitution and laws. This is an unconstitutional and illegal reckless act that not only abandons the duty to faithfully perform the “duties of the President” stipulated in the Constitution, but also abandons the duty to faithfully perform his or her duties while abiding by the laws stipulated in the National Civil Service Act.
B. Violation of Martial Law (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5, Article 11, Paragraph 1 of Martial Law)
As mentioned above, President Yoon Seok-yeol destroyed the peaceful daily lives of the people by enforcing martial law without even considering the deliberation of the State Council, despite the fact that there was no state of emergency or a state of emergency equivalent to it, and there were no signs of it at all. This act itself violates both the substantive requirements for declaring martial law as stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Martial Law Act, and the procedural requirements for declaring martial law, which stipulate the procedures for declaring martial law, such as deliberation by the State Council and notification to the National Assembly. In addition, despite the fact that the National Assembly promptly decided to lift martial law, announced it, and notified the Office of the President and the Ministry of National Defense, he delayed the lifting of martial law for several hours, which ultimately led to the situation where the National Assembly repeatedly requested the lifting of martial law. This is also a violation of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Martial Law Act, which stipulates that if the National Assembly decides to lift martial law, the State Council must convene without delay to decide on lifting martial law and announce it.
4. Attempted treason under the Criminal Act (Articles 87 and 91 of the Criminal Act)
President Yoon Seok-yeol’s declaration of martial law constitutes an act of rebellion under the criminal law. Article 87 of the Criminal Act punishes a case of rebellion when a riot is committed with the purpose of excluding state power or subverting the Constitution in all or part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. Article 91 of the Criminal Act divides the definition of subversion of the Constitution in rebellion into two, specifying “1. extinguishing the function of the Constitution or laws without following the procedures stipulated by the Constitution or laws, 2. overthrowing the state organs established by the Constitution or making the exercise of their power impossible through coercion.” In the end, a riot committed with the purpose of excluding state power or subverting the Constitution in all or part of the territory of the Republic of Korea is considered rebellion.
Accordingly, we first examine whether this declaration of martial law and its subsequent actions were intended to disrupt the Constitution. As previously stated, the declaration of martial law declared by President Yoon Seok-yeol is an unconstitutional and illegal martial law that violates the requirements and procedures stipulated in the Constitution and the Martial Law Act. Afterwards, hundreds of armed military personnel boarded helicopters and arrived at the National Assembly, stormed the main building, and attempted to enter the plenary session where 190 members of the National Assembly were processing a resolution demanding the lifting of martial law. In the process, the military personnel broke the windows of the National Assembly building and threatened National Assembly aides with guns. It was also confirmed that the martial law troops who entered the National Assembly attempted to arrest and detain National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik, Democratic Party of Korea leader Lee Jae-myung, and People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon. This can be said to be an act that seeks to extinguish the functions of the National Assembly or its members as stipulated in the Constitution and the National Assembly Act without going through the martial law procedures stipulated in the Constitution or laws, and thus clearly falls under subversion of the Constitution as defined in Article 91, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act. In addition, since it attempted to render the National Assembly, a state organ established by the Constitution, unable to exercise its powers through coercion by military force, it falls under an attempt to subvert the Constitution as defined in Article 91, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act.
Next, regarding whether it corresponds to a case of rioting, the Supreme Court ruled that the content of the riot, which is an element of the crime of sedition, such as assault or intimidation, refers to the broadest sense of assault or intimidation that means the exercise of any type of force or the notification of harm that creates a sense of terror, and that it is a concept that comprehensively understands the act of preparing or assisting it, and that the degree must be such that it has the power to disturb the peace of a region (Supreme Court 1997. 4. 17. Decision 96do3376 Full Bench). The martial law army that entered the National Assembly at that time attempted to arrest and detain National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik, Democratic Party of Korea Representative Lee Jae-myung, and People Power Party Representative Han Dong-hoon, and blocked many other National Assembly members from entering the plenary session, thereby hindering the National Assembly's proceedings on the motion to lift martial law, and even blocked the exercise of the right to deliberate and vote on the motion by many National Assembly members, who are individual constitutional institutions. In particular, the fact that a large number of martial law troops entered the National Assembly building carrying firearms and attempted to enter the main conference hall where the plenary session was being held at the time constitutes a malicious act of using any kind of force or causing a sense of terror. In addition, considering that the military forces were deployed in armored vehicles in downtown Seoul at the time and that the military forces entered the National Assembly earlier, it is reasonable to assume that the level of force was enough to disturb the peace of a region. Therefore, it can be said that this constitutes a riot as defined in Article 87 of the Criminal Act.
When President Yoon Seok-yeol's demand to clear up public suspicions about the criminal activities of himself, his spouse, and other relatives became a reality in the form of a bill to appoint a special prosecutor, he conspired with his subordinates, including Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, Army Chief of Staff and Martial Law Commander Park An-soo, and Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun, to directly mobilize rebels in support of them and blockade the National Assembly. This can be said to be an act of rebellion that attempted to permanently usurp power after nullifying the National Assembly's resolution to lift martial law, individually detaining members of the National Assembly, and paralyzing the functions of the National Assembly, thereby rendering the constitutional institution inoperable.
During this process, President Yoon Seok-yeol and his party attempted to paralyze the National Assembly proceedings by mobilizing special forces via helicopter and breaking the glass doors and windows of the National Assembly building, but citizens gathered around the National Assembly building blocked the rebels' activities, and in order to protect the Constitution, members of the National Assembly climbed over the wall to attend the plenary session of the National Assembly, and by blocking the rebels' entry through physical defense by public officials including the National Assembly Security Division, they were able to narrowly prevent the malfunctioning of the constitutional institution.
However, the attempt by President Yoon Seok-yeol and rebel forces within the military to use force to exclude power from the National Assembly and disrupt the Constitution is a serious crime that clearly amounts to internal rebellion.
On December 4, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and relevant ministers and vice ministers leave the conference room at the Government Complex Seoul in Jongno-gu, Seoul after discussing current issues. ⓒYonhap News
4. Seriousness of violation of the Constitution and laws
In order for the decision to remove President Yoon Seok-yeol from office to be justified, the president’s unlawful act must have had a significant meaning from the perspective of protecting the Constitution to the extent that the decision to remove him must be used to protect the Constitution and restore the damaged constitutional order. The president must have betrayed the people’s trust through unlawful acts to the extent that the people’s trust in the president must be revoked during his term. Since it is depriving the democratic legitimacy of a president directly elected by the people during his term, impeachment proceedings will be justified only in cases where it is urgent to recover the power granted by the people in order to protect and maintain the constitutional order from the perspective of popular sovereignty.
However, as discussed above, President Yoon Seok-yeol, as the head of the executive branch who enjoys the people’s trust, must first hold a State Council meeting in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Constitution in order to decide whether to declare martial law, and whether the requirements set forth in the Constitution and laws have been sufficiently met (applicability of requirements), and whether it was impossible to overcome a crisis equivalent to a state of emergency through normal means considering the restrictions on basic rights and the disruption of the constitutional order due to the declaration of martial law (supplementarity of the order), and must then, if possible, communicate with constitutional organs (especially the National Assembly, which, like the President, is a power with democratic legitimacy directly elected by the people) before making a decision and executing it. Despite this, he has neglected essential procedures under the Constitution by not even holding a State Council meeting for deliberation, and thus many State Council members, including the Prime Minister, were only able to learn of the declaration of martial law by watching the President’s broadcast of martial law declaration, thereby attempting to neutralize the National Assembly, the only constitutional control body over the President’s exercise of martial law power according to the Constitution, and ordered the Martial Law Commander to completely ban National Assembly activities, an unprecedented attempt. They attempted a 'coup d'état' by politically instrumentalizing the military, such as by declaring an unconstitutional proclamation. Although the National Assembly quickly convened to lift martial law, breaking through the unconstitutional and illegal control and blockade of the military and police, thereby preventing a repeat of the horrible results of the massacre of its own citizens by unfortunate soldiers in the constitutional history of the Republic of Korea, it is still an attempt to trample on the basic rights of the people through acts of attempted rebellion, and it cannot be denied that this was a seriously unconstitutional and illegal act.
Therefore, it is no longer acceptable for the president to remain in office from the perspective of protecting the Constitution, and the president has betrayed the people's trust and lost the qualifications to run the state.
5. Conclusion
Since taking office as president on May 10, 2022, President Yoon Seok-yeol has completely ignored the voices of the people and has consistently maintained a lack of communication, while being obsessed with his own stubbornness, such as falling for the claims of an unidentified shaman. In addition, he has failed to properly respond to the Itaewon disaster, which resulted in the loss of 159 lives in the capital city of Seoul in the middle of the night. As the head of the administration, he has consistently acted irresponsibly, showing no interest in the lives, safety, and happiness of the people, and has not even tried to show empathy.
Furthermore, under the pretext of so-called value diplomacy, it has ignored geopolitical balance, has antagonized North Korea, China, and Russia, insisted on a strange Japan-centered foreign policy, and has appointed people with pro-Japanese ties to key government posts, thereby inviting isolation in Northeast Asia and triggering the crisis of war, thereby neglecting national security and the duty to protect the people.
In addition, the prosecution and the Board of Audit and Inspection, which should serve the people fairly, were mobilized to pressure the opposition party and other critical forces and former government officials, which was an irrational and regressive idea that the people's support would return, and this led to division among the people by suppressing political opponents.
Meanwhile, as the suspicions of the spouses' stock price manipulation were confirmed as true by a court ruling, and as suspicions of President Yoon Seok-yeol and his wife's manipulation of public opinion in the presidential election, bribery of the costs of the public opinion poll, and intervention in the nomination of former National Assembly member Kim Young-sun and subsequent corruption were raised, the public began to demand an investigation into the suspicions of President Yoon Seok-yeol and his wife's department store eating, which are comparable to meddling in state affairs.
President Yoon Seok-yeol has abandoned his constitutional and legal duty to encourage an investigation by a fair investigative team in accordance with the fairness and common sense he declared during the last presidential election, and has resorted to abusing his veto power and illegally carrying out personnel changes for the prosecution, among other means, to conceal the crimes of himself and his family.
When President Yoon Seok-yeol could no longer stop the spread of suspicions, he attempted to commit sedition mobilizing the military and police on the night of December 3, 2024, with the collusion and protection of his accomplice, Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun. This was an act of betrayal that brought back to the people the 44-year history of constitutional government and the terrible, tragic memory of fratricide, and brought about “indescribable disappointment” to the people of the Republic of Korea and “irreparable emotional wounds” to the sovereigns who trusted the president and entrusted him with state affairs.
President Yoon Seok-yeol ultimately attempted to evade the public's demands for an investigation into the truth behind and punishment for the criminal acts of himself and his spouse by ordering the illegal mobilization of the military, including his subordinate Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, thereby paralyzing constitutional institutions and attempting to disrupt the constitutional order, thereby effectively attempting an internal rebellion to permanently usurp power. Therefore, the impeachment of President Yoon Seok-yeol and his removal from public office has become a mission of the times required to "restore the damaged fundamental constitutional order" that cannot be compared to the national loss and vacuum in state affairs caused by the interruption of the president's performance of duties.
The impeachment and removal of President Yoon Seok-yeol will not only contribute to the unification of public opinion, rather than its division, but will also reaffirm that the democratic development achieved by the blood of the people of the Republic of Korea will never regress and has been built so firmly that it cannot be destroyed by the impure prayers of a few thugs.
Accordingly, the National Assembly, the temple of public opinion, wishes to reaffirm the strict constitutional principle that the Republic of Korea is a country of the people and that even the President will never be permitted to exercise his power in a way that betrays the will and trust of the people, and hereby initiates the impeachment of President Yoon Seok-yeol in accordance with the will of the people.
SisaIN Editorial Department View other articles
18. The Forgotten Crucibles: The Korean War and the Balkans Wars as Markers of Geopolitical Flux
The Korean War certainly still reverberates to this day. And we fail to heed its many lessons at our peril.
Excerpts:
Ultimately, the Korean War and the Balkans Wars serve as poignant reminders that even conflicts relegated to the periphery of collective memory can act as pivotal junctures in the ever-evolving landscape of global geopolitics, providing invaluable insights into conflict resolution and the importance of international cooperation. The Western Balkans today illustrate the enduring relevance of these historical lessons, as nations navigate the intricate dynamics of great power competition and strive toward a resilient, secure, and prosperous future.
While often dubbed “Forgotten Wars,” the Korean War and the Balkans Wars were far from insignificant in shaping contemporary global politics contours. Each conflict acted as a crucible for broader geopolitical and geostrategic shifts, setting precedents in military strategy, economic paradigms, and international humanitarian law. The Korean War entrenched Cold War divides and catalyzed strategic militarization in the Asia-Pacific, a legacy that persists in regional security dynamics to this day. The guiding American foreign policy for the Korean War, the so-called Truman Doctrine, aimed at containing the spread of communism and supporting democracies in their struggle against authoritarianism. Conversely, the Balkans Wars signified a post-Cold War recalibration, prompting redefined Western military doctrines and laying the groundwork for military-humanitarian operations (MHO) interventions and the expansion of Euro-Atlantic institutions. As the threat of communism faded, the Clinton Doctrine shifted American foreign policy to center on American national and humanitarian interests. However, American humanitarian interventionism was selective as the U.S. intervened in Bosnia and Somalia; while ignoring other regions that were stricken with grave human rights concerns, such as Rwanda.
As global actors continually navigate the complexities of a multipolar world, historical lessons gleaned from these “Forgotten Wars” provide invaluable insights into conflict resolution mechanisms, international cooperation imperatives, and the enduring quest for peace and stability in a world perpetually on the brink of change. The Korean War and the Balkans Wars serve as poignant reminders that even conflicts relegated to the periphery of collective memory can act as pivotal junctures in the ever-evolving landscape of global geopolitics.
The Forgotten Crucibles: The Korean War and the Balkans Wars as Markers of Geopolitical Flux
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2024/12/06/the-forgotten-crucibles/
by Dr. Isaiah Wilson III, by Michael Greenberg
|
12.06.2024 at 06:00am
In the annals of modern conflict, the Korean War and the Balkans Wars represent significant yet often overlooked episodes overshadowed by larger or more prolonged military engagements. Both conflicts serve as pivotal points of geopolitical and geostrategic recalibration in their respective eras.
The Korean War (1950-1953) and the Balkans Wars (1989-2002) not only reconfigured regional power dynamics but also redefined global strategic paradigms.
The Korean War erupted during the Cold War, a period marked by ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The invasion of South Korea by North Korean forces on June 25, 1950, quickly turned the peninsula into an arena for superpower contention. The rapid involvement of United Nations forces (primarily U.S.), in support of the South, and later Chinese intervention, in support of the North, underscored the global stakes involved in a region whose strategic importance exceeded its modest geographic size.
In contrast, the Balkans Wars occurred in the post-Cold War era, characterized by the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and ensuing turmoil. Ethnic nationalism and secessionist movements triggered horrendous acts of ethnic cleansing and atrocities. The United States, alongside NATO, intervened primarily in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995) and Kosovo (1998-1999) to stabilize a region essential for European security.
The Korean War entrenched the ideological division of the world into two antagonistic blocs. The armistice signed on July 27, 1953, solidified the 38th parallel as a geopolitical fault line, catalyzed military pacts such as SEATO, and bolstered U.S. commitments in Asia, serving as a deterrent to communist expansion. This conflict contributed to the militarization of the Cold War, sustaining an arms race and mutual suspicion.
Conversely, the Balkans Wars marked a reorganization of the European geostrategic landscape post-Soviet dissolution. The violent fragmentation of Yugoslavia exposed the frailties of nascent post-Cold War international structures and necessitated a reevaluation of collective security mechanisms. The post-Cold War structure also exposed the latent hostilities of different populations living along civilizational fault lines. NATO’s interventions during Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo shifted the alliance from a defensive posture to an assertive peace-enforcement entity, redefined European security paradigms, and integrated the Balkans into a broader Euro-Atlantic framework, setting precedents for humanitarian interventions. Finally, the Balkans Wars served as a face-saving moment for NATO, as the transatlantic alliance underwent an identity crisis, in the wake of the dissolution of the very empire that it was built to balance against.
Strategically, the Korean War highlighted the importance of flexible response doctrines, leading U.S. military strategies to evolve to encompass asymmetric warfare and power projection capabilities. It emphasized the criticality of air superiority and naval power in modern conflict, influencing U.S. military engagement in subsequent conflicts such as Vietnam and the broader Cold War theater. Moreover, the Korean War tested the concept of conducting a “limited war.” Particularly, this war revealed the complexities involved in integrating new technologies and theories, such as nuclear weapons and deterrence theory, into strategy and military doctrine. By losing the “nuclear monopoly”, the U.S. was faced with the strategic dilemma associated with the potential use of nuclear weapons, demonstrating how emerging technologies could complicate efforts to confine a conflict to specific parameters and prevent it from escalating into a broader, more destructive confrontation.
The Balkans Wars, especially the Kosovo conflict, served as testing grounds for modern precision-strike warfare and the use of airpower to achieve political objectives without extensive ground deployments. The reliance on technology, represented by advancements in satellite targeting, stealth aircraft, and precision-guided munitions, became hallmarks of NATO operations. These shifts underscored a transition towards network-centric warfare, which would later be exemplified in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Balkans Wars demonstrated how secondary parties are able to utilize asymmetric military capabilities to influence the outcome of conflict bereft of expending blood in the form of boots on the ground.
The economic ramifications of the Korean War were profound and multifaceted. It catalyzed a resurgence of the U.S. defense industry, injecting vitality into a post-World War II economy that was facing potential contraction. The Marshall Plan was extended to bolster European allies, ensuring economic stability amid geopolitical instability. South Korea’s post-war reconstruction laid the foundations for its eventual economic miracle, transitioning it from an agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse.
In contrast, the economic implications of the Balkans Wars were largely detrimental to the region, exacerbating the hardships of post-communist transition. The conflicts shattered infrastructure, stunted economic growth, and necessitated substantial international aid for reconstruction and stabilization. Large quantities of military and humanitarian aid were siphoned off by nefarious actors that used the conflict for personal enrichment in places such as Sarajevo and Brčko. As the rule of law faded, other opportunists exploited the conflict through the creation of human smuggling networks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the post-conflict era saw the integration of Balkans states into broader European economic structures, with several nations becoming EU candidates or members, gaining access to development funds and investment opportunities.
Both conflicts wrought immense human suffering. The Korean War resulted in millions of casualties and refugees, leaving the Korean Peninsula divided and scarred by memories of conflict. Humanitarian channels were strained by the refugee crisis, compelling the United Nations and numerous non-governmental organizations to mount significant relief efforts.
Similarly, the Balkans Wars were marked by egregious human rights violations, including genocide, mass atrocities, and ethnic cleansing. The ensuing humanitarian crises prompted unprecedented international interventions, ranging from UN peacekeeping missions to NATO military campaigns. These interventions starkly highlighted the international community’s responsibility to protect civilian populations, a concept formalized in the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which has since informed global intervention policies.
Establishment of Geostrategic Precedents
The Korean War and the Balkans Wars each established critical geostrategic precedents that continue to influence international relations. The Korean War entrenched a permanent U.S. military presence in Asia, fortifying alliances in the Pacific and shaping the strategic landscape of East Asia. It signified the era’s bipolarity, with the U.S. and USSR leading opposing blocs, and marked a rare instance of collective security under the UN banner, legitimizing multinational interventions under UN aegis.
The Balkans Wars, on the other hand, prompted NATO’s strategic reorientation from a Cold War deterrent to an active peace enforcement and crisis management entity. The conflicts necessitated humanitarian intervention and contributed significantly to the evolution of the R2P principle, embedding it into international law and policy. The resolution of these wars also accelerated the integration of Eastern European states into Euro-Atlantic structures, reinforcing stability in a historically turbulent region.
The façade of a collective state under the tutelage of Yugoslavia’s socialist federation system gave way to the latent ethnic and religious hostilities which fractured the region throughout the 90’s and early 2000’s. Tribalism emerged in the vacuum of the collapsed Yugoslav state.
Furthermore, the Balkans Wars witnessed a unique phenomenon where a major sponsor, the United States, supported peoples outside of their cultural kin. In supporting the Bosniaks, the U.S. shifted foreign policy by backing a population who had little historical and cultural connection to the U.S. In contrast, other foreign backers of this conflict tended to support those within their cultural kin. The nascent Russian Federation firmly supported the Milosevic regime and the Slavic Eastern Orthodox Serbians. Ethnic Croats, who are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, found support mainly emanating from Germany and the Vatican. Finally, besides the U.S., the Bosniaks had extensive support from Islamic nations. These nations include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and ironically for the U.S., Iran; a recent historical caveat where the U.S. and Iran found themselves supporting the same group, albeit for different strategic objectives.
During the Korean War, sponsorship was almost exclusively ideologically driven. Like the Bosniaks, the homogenous Korea’s shared little cultural and historical connection to both the heterogenous bipolar powers. However, similar to most conflicts during the Cold War, sponsorship was given based on an ideology calculation, rather than based simply on being a part of the same civilization. An American foreign policy of containment, and faith in the Domino Theory, drove American national security interests in supporting the South Koreans. More broadly, the UN’s peacekeeping mission sought to support any group in their struggle for freedom and human rights as stipulated in the UN’s founding Charter. On the other hand, the Soviets came to the aid of their Marxist-Leninist counterparts in the nascent People’s Republic of China, who initially came to the aid of the North Koreans in order to ensure, at the very least, a buffer state between the Mainland and any Western-oriented country.
The long-term geopolitical ramifications of these conflicts are substantial. For the Korean Peninsula, the armistice line signed in 1953 left the region in a state of tension that persists to this day, highlighting the need for diplomatic solutions to address nuclear proliferation and regional stability. Currently, the Koreas are mainly divided by ideological differences rather than any fundamental differences in history, culture, or identity. The United States continues to view the Korean Peninsula as pivotal in balancing Chinese and North Korean influence in Asia.
In the Balkans, the post-war landscape has seen steady progress toward Euro-Atlantic integration. The façade of a collective state under the tutelage of Yugoslavia’s socialist federation system gave way to the latent ethnic and religious hostilities which fractured the region throughout the 90’s and early 2000’s. Tribalism emerged in the vacuum of the collapsed Yugoslav state. This identity crisis caused various ethnic groups in the region to no longer peacefully coexist with those that they had lived beside for generations. While ethnic tensions endure, EU enlargement and NATO partnerships have fostered relative peace and economic development. However, unresolved territorial disputes and the specter of ethnic nationalism continue to underscore the region’s long-term stability’s fragility.
The Western Balkans as a 21st Century ‘Geostrategic Pivot’
As the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century evolves, the Western Balkans re-emerge as a focal point in the intricate web of ‘compound security competition’ among great powers. This region, once a flashpoint of conflict and intervention, now finds itself at the nexus of strategic interests for several global actors. Understanding the contemporary importance of the Western Balkans necessitates a nuanced analysis of the region’s role in the ongoing geopolitical and geostrategic calculus.
The Western Balkans occupy a strategic geographic position, acting as a land bridge between Europe, the Near East, and the Eastern Mediterranean. This proximity to key maritime routes and critical energy corridors underscores their significance in broader European and trans-Eurasian geopolitics. NATO’s expansion into the Western Balkans, marked by the accession of Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020, aims to solidify a zone of stability and deter external adversaries, particularly Russia. The prospect of EU membership for countries like Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo represents both an incentive for democratic reforms and a strategic move to anchor these states within the European sphere of influence. Additionally, the Western Balkans are crucial for diversifying European energy supplies away from Russian dominance. Projects like the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) through Albania and other initiatives are pivotal in enhancing energy security for the continent.
Effective collaboration between Western Balkans states and international agencies is essential in countering radicalization and ensuring both regional and continental security.
In the current global order, great power rivalries intensify as the United States, European Union, Russia, and China each vie for influence in the Western Balkans. The United States continues its commitment to ensuring the region’s stability through NATO, viewing the Western Balkans as a bulwark against malign influence from Moscow and Beijing. Russia maintains strong cultural and religious ties with Slavic and Orthodox Christian populations in the Balkans, notably Serbia and Republika Srpska in Bosnia . Moscow leverages these connections to foster political influence, counter NATO expansion, and disrupt Western unity. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has extended into the Western Balkans, with significant investments in infrastructure projects, creating a strategic foothold in the region . Chinese economic engagement aims at gaining influence in Europe’s periphery and securing access to crucial logistics and resource routes.
While geopolitical and strategic interests dominate the discourse, the Western Balkans’ economic development trajectory remains critical. Significant investments in infrastructure—such as the modernization of ports, railways, and energy facilities—are pivotal for economic integration with the European Union and other global markets.
These projects promise economic upliftment but also serve as battlegrounds for influence between Western powers and China. The demographic dynamics of the Western Balkans, including high youth unemployment and migration patterns, impact both regional stability and the labor markets of Western Europe. Managing these human capital flows is crucial for both economic stability in the Balkans and societal cohesion in receiving countries. The European Union’s financial aid through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) is also vital for reforms and development in the Western Balkans, helping to enhance governance, rule of law, and socio-economic standards, thereby aligning the region more closely with EU norms and standards.
In the realm of security, the Western Balkans present both a challenge and an opportunity for consolidating European stability and countering hybrid threats. The region’s history as a transit route and recruiting ground for foreign fighters necessitates robust counter-terrorism measures. Effective collaboration between Western Balkans states and international agencies is essential in countering radicalization and ensuring both regional and continental security. Additionally, the susceptibility of the region to hybrid warfare tactics, including disinformation campaigns and cyber-attacks primarily attributed to Russian interference, underscores the need to strengthen cybersecurity frameworks and information resilience to safeguard democratic processes and national sovereignty. Organized crime remains another persistent issue, with Western Balkans networks involved in trafficking and illicit trade across Europe. International cooperation and stringent law enforcement measures are critical to curbing these transnational threats and ensuring regional security.
The Western Balkans today stand at a confluence of geopolitical ambitions where convergence and divergence shape the regional and global landscape. Convergence points include transatlantic cooperation, as U.S. and EU policies align towards integrating the Western Balkans more deeply into Euro-Atlantic structures, promoting regional peace and stability. Shared interests in infrastructure development by different stakeholders, including Western, Russian, and Chinese actors, can potentially lead to economic growth and regional connectivity, albeit with differing strategic intentions complicating these efforts.
However, divergences are also evident in the diverging strategic goals of NATO and the EU vis-à-vis Russia and China, manifesting in proxy contests over political influence, military presence, and economic leverage in the Western Balkans. The interplay of external powers often exacerbates local political fragmentation and ethnic tensions, making governance and regional cooperation more challenging.
To navigate the complex web of interests and maintain stability in the Western Balkans, a multi-pronged strategic approach is recommended. This includes strengthening the role of regional mechanisms like the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) and enhancing the capacities of Western Balkans countries to address collective security threats. Encouraging balanced economic integration by leveraging investments from multiple sources while safeguarding national sovereignty and ensuring adherence to international norms and regulations is crucial for sustainable development. Intimately linked to this is the need to intensify security cooperation through NATO and bilateral agreements to counter hybrid threats, enhance cybersecurity resilience, and disrupt transnational criminal networks.
Promoting sustainable development is another key strategic recommendation. Infrastructural investments should be linked to sustainable development goals, ensuring that projects funded by external actors contribute to long-term socio-economic benefits rather than creating debt dependencies. Additionally, fostering societal resilience by supporting civil society and initiatives that promote democratic values, governance reforms, and societal resilience against disinformation and external political pressure is critical for ensuring regional stability and good governance.
In conclusion (‘epilogue as prologue’), the Western Balkans reassert their importance as a barometer of broader geopolitical dynamics in the contemporary theater of great power competition. The region’s stability and prosperity hinge not only on local governance but also on the strategic inclinations of external powers. By understanding the multifaceted roles and competing interests in the Western Balkans, stakeholders can better navigate the complexities of 21st-century compound security competition, fostering a more stable, secure, and integrated European periphery. Through nuanced, cooperative engagement, the historical lessons from the Korean and Balkans wars inform contemporary policies and strategies, ensuring a continued quest for peace and stability in regions that once again stand at crucial geopolitical crossroads.
Ultimately, the Korean War and the Balkans Wars serve as poignant reminders that even conflicts relegated to the periphery of collective memory can act as pivotal junctures in the ever-evolving landscape of global geopolitics, providing invaluable insights into conflict resolution and the importance of international cooperation. The Western Balkans today illustrate the enduring relevance of these historical lessons, as nations navigate the intricate dynamics of great power competition and strive toward a resilient, secure, and prosperous future.
While often dubbed “Forgotten Wars,” the Korean War and the Balkans Wars were far from insignificant in shaping contemporary global politics contours. Each conflict acted as a crucible for broader geopolitical and geostrategic shifts, setting precedents in military strategy, economic paradigms, and international humanitarian law. The Korean War entrenched Cold War divides and catalyzed strategic militarization in the Asia-Pacific, a legacy that persists in regional security dynamics to this day. The guiding American foreign policy for the Korean War, the so-called Truman Doctrine, aimed at containing the spread of communism and supporting democracies in their struggle against authoritarianism. Conversely, the Balkans Wars signified a post-Cold War recalibration, prompting redefined Western military doctrines and laying the groundwork for military-humanitarian operations (MHO) interventions and the expansion of Euro-Atlantic institutions. As the threat of communism faded, the Clinton Doctrine shifted American foreign policy to center on American national and humanitarian interests. However, American humanitarian interventionism was selective as the U.S. intervened in Bosnia and Somalia; while ignoring other regions that were stricken with grave human rights concerns, such as Rwanda.
As global actors continually navigate the complexities of a multipolar world, historical lessons gleaned from these “Forgotten Wars” provide invaluable insights into conflict resolution mechanisms, international cooperation imperatives, and the enduring quest for peace and stability in a world perpetually on the brink of change. The Korean War and the Balkans Wars serve as poignant reminders that even conflicts relegated to the periphery of collective memory can act as pivotal junctures in the ever-evolving landscape of global geopolitics.
Tags: Balkans War, Geopolitical Dynamics, Korean War, proxy strategy, proxy warfare
About The Authors
- Dr. Isaiah Wilson III
- Isaiah (Ike) Wilson III earned his PhD in Government (Intl Relations and American Politics) from Cornell University and is a professor of practice with the School of Politics & Global Affairs at Arizona State University (ASU). He is president emeritus of the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU), a partner with Gainful Solutions Ventures Inc., and president and CEO of Wilson W.i.S.E. Consulting LLC, which provides advisory services on strategy and operational planning, technology & teaming integration, transitions (change) leadership coaching and organizational re-design and innovation. A decorated combat veteran with combat tours in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and direct strategic and operational planning and advisory service to six (6) 4-Star Commanders, three Secretaries of Defense, numerous ambassadorial chiefs of mission, and the presidents of three foreign country partner nations, Wilson’s civil-military career has spanned troop-leading, staff-planning, strategic advisory and teaching assignments. He has published extensively on organizational politics, civil-military relations, national security (defense) policy, and grand strategy. His book, Thinking beyond War: Civil-Military Relations and Why America Fails to Win the Peace, along with his service on the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group, helped to increase public attention to the problems and errors in U.S. post-war planning for the Iraq War and sparked governmental movement toward policy reforms. He founded the West Point Grand Strategy Program and has executive directed, taught, and conducted research at several top-tier and top-ranked colleges and universities, including Yale, Columbia, West Point, and the National War College. He is a Life member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Senior Future Security Initiative Fellow with New America.
-
View all posts
- Michael Greenberg
- Michael Greenberg earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with an emphasis in International Relations from the University of Arizona and a Master of Arts (with distinction) in Global Security from Arizona State University. He currently holds an embedded analyst position in an Intelligence Operations Center for a Fortune 500 company.
-
View all posts
19. Shamanism and Korean politics: Choosing the right time for a coup?
And now for something completely different from Professor Robertson in Seoul.
(And note that a political science professor should know that the martial law debacle was not a coup).
Shamanism and Korean politics: Choosing the right time for a coup?
https://www.junotane.com/p/shamanism-and-korean-politics-choosing-the-right-time-for-a-coup?utm
Rumors of shamanistic influence on the choice of day and hour to initiate a coup are swirling.
Dec 05, 2024
Share
For those outside Korea, it’s hard to imagine that the country’s politics are influenced by centuries-old mysticism. Shamanism (musok), once a cornerstone of indigenous spirituality, has quietly evolved into a shadowy force in modern politics. While America has corporate funded think tanks and lobby groups (which are sometimes just as esoteric), Korea has shaman (mudang) whose supposed insights can influence everything from campaign strategies to crisis management.
For centuries, Korean shamans, often dismissed as relics of a pre-modern past, have played an outsized role in the lives of those desperate enough to seek their guidance. Historically, their rituals addressed agricultural woes and health crises, providing a blend of theater and hope to a largely rural society. Today, their clientele includes not just the desperate but the powerful—politicians keen to exploit spiritual beliefs to justify their actions or absolve their failures.
In a political climate marked by scandals and mistrust, it’s hardly surprising that some leaders resort to shamanic rituals. Why bother addressing real issues when you can hire a mudang to ward off “bad energy” or perform a kut (ritual) to guarantee electoral success? It’s governance by divine intervention, dressed up as tradition but often executed with more cynicism than Cambridge Analytica (the U.K. based firm that used Facebook data to disinform and sway public opinion in the lead up to Brexit).
Enter Choi Soon-sil
The infamous 2016 Choi Soon-sil scandal dragged shamanism from the periphery of Korean politics into the harsh glare of global scrutiny. As a confidante to then-President Park Geun-hye, Choi wielded astonishing influence over state affairs—her power allegedly derived from her connection to spirits. Whether these spirits had anything useful to say about economic policy or North Korean diplomacy remains unclear, but they certainly did wonders for fueling public outrage.
The public anger surrounding former president Park was fueled by revelations of her close ties to Choi, who allegedly exploited Park’s beliefs to wield power behind the scenes, reinforcing fears of corruption and nepotism. This scandal not only undermined public trust in the government but also highlighted lingering cultural tensions around shamanism’s role in modern Korea, ultimately leading to mass protests and Park’s impeachment.
Choi’s involvement in government was emblematic of a deeper issue: the normalization of superstition in high-level decision-making. Her influence over Park, reportedly bolstered by rituals and spiritual consultations, laid bare a system that allowed personal belief to override institutional accountability. The scandal revealed not just corruption but a bizarre mix of spiritual manipulation and political ineptitude that undermined public trust.
Beyond the spectacle of Choi Soon-sil, the darker side of shamanism in politics exposes its use as a weapon of fear and manipulation. Whisper campaigns about curses or spiritual retribution have long been employed to discredit rivals or galvanize support. This isn’t just folklore; it’s tactical slander, cloaked in the legitimacy of cultural tradition.
The rise of so-called "dark shamanism"—a term that encapsulates the alleged use of animal sacrifices, possession rituals, and other theatrics—represents the ultimate commodification of fear. Politicians seeking to intimidate opponents or distract the public from their own failures have found shamanism to be an effective, if ethically questionable, ally.
Shamanism and social media
In a hyperconnected world, even shamanism has gone digital. Mudang now leverage YouTube, live streaming, and social media to market their services, transforming a practice steeped in ancient tradition into a sleek, algorithm-friendly business (no endoresement or claims, but check out this one and this one for examples of social media shamans). Politicians, ever opportunistic, have not hesitated to tap into this trend. A well-placed video of a ritual or a shamanic endorsement can generate the kind of viral attention that conventional campaign ads can only dream of.
This digital shift hasn’t just expanded the audience for shamanism; it has also diluted its credibility. What was once an intimate, face-to-face interaction between practitioner and client is now a performance tailored for clicks and shares. Much like the Evangelist Christian money-hungry preachers in the U.S., shamans know their clientele and their weaknesses. The line between spiritual guidance and outright spectacle has never been thinner, and politicians are more than happy to exploit this ambiguity.
Korean society’s relationship with shamanism is a study in contradiction. On the one hand, it is dismissed as superstitious and backward, a vestige of a pre-modern Korea that many would rather forget. On the other, it persists as a cultural touchstone, invoked during moments of crisis or uncertainty. This paradox allows shamanism to thrive in the shadows, unregulated yet influential, ridiculed yet revered.
For politicians, this ambivalence is a gift. They can disavow shamanism publicly while engaging with it privately, weaponizing cultural heritage when it suits their agenda. The electorate, meanwhile, is left to question whether their leaders are guided by policy experts or by the whims of a spirit-possessed intermediary.
The right day for a coup?
Recent events have underscored this troubling dynamic. When President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law, ostensibly to eliminate "pro-North Korean anti-state forces" the rumors of shamanic involvement were not far behind. The unexpected and unprecedented political move culminated in the National Assembly voting to reverse the order, and the nation celebrated a landmark victory for democracy - but the question of why still confounds!
Amidst this chaos, rumors are swirling that Yoon's drastic action was influenced by shamanic counsel—a claim that, while unverified, gained traction due to his administration's alleged ties to shamanistic practices.
During the conservative party’s primaries, images spread widely of Yoon raising his hand to show the word “king” written in Chinese charaters. As reported in the the Hankyoreh Newspaper, his rival candidate Hong Joon-pyo noted in a Facebook post: “Seeing on the news about how [Yoon] is always consorting with shamanists, I had to wonder whether he’s trying to become a ‘shaman president.’”
In March 2022, Yoon announced plans to relocate the presidential office from the traditional Blue House to the Ministry of National Defense building in Yongsan. This move was intended to symbolize a departure from what he termed the "imperial" presidency and to foster closer communication with the public. The relocation was completed by May 10, 2022, coinciding with Yoon's inauguration, and the Blue House was subsequently opened to the public as a park. Despite official statements emphasizing transparency and accessibility, the decision faced criticism over its cost and potential security implications (others claim it was justified because the U.S. had bugged the Blue House so effectively, it could not be cleared without blowing up the building!).
Inevitably, unverified allegations surfaced, suggesting that shamanistic beliefs influenced the relocation, though these claims were firmly denied by Yoon's administration.
Such incidents highlight the peril of allowing superstition to seep into the corridors of power. When leaders prioritize esoteric rituals over empirical decision-making, the very foundations of democracy are at risk.
The enduring presence of shamanism in its political sphere serves as a reminder of the uneasy coexistence between tradition and modernity. While the nation projects an image of progress and innovation, its political system occasionally leans on practices that are anything but rational.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that shamanism, so often dismissed as anachronistic, remains deeply embedded in the mechanisms of power. It thrives not because it is valued but because it is useful—an unregulated, culturally ingrained tool that offers plausible deniability for those who wield it. In a democracy built on transparency and accountability, its persistence is both a symptom and a cause of deeper systemic flaws.
Image 1: “Mudang Performing a Ritual” at Wikipedia (Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 License)
Image 2: “Protest Of President Park Geun Hye” by Mathew Schwartz (Creative Commons Attribution 1.0)
20. The unintended consequences of Yoon's martial law debacle
My latest essay.
Voices Dec. 5, 2024 / 1:37 PM
The unintended consequences of Yoon's martial law debacle
https://www.upi.com/Voices/2024/12/05/unintended-consequences-president-yoon-martial-law-south-korea/2261733421061/
By David Maxwell
Protesters hold signs calling for South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to be impeached and arrested at the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea on Wednesday. Photo by Thomas Maresca/UPI | License Photo
Dec. 5 (UPI) -- South Korea's political landscape is no stranger to dramatic upheavals, but President Yoon Suk Yeol's recent imposition of martial law marks a turning point that will resonate far beyond its borders. The incident, which drew immediate condemnation from international observers and domestic factions, casts a shadow over the 8.15 Unification Doctrine, the ambitious framework aimed at a free and unified Korea. While South Korean democratic institutions held firm, the ramifications of this disaster are multifaceted, touching on domestic stability, international relations, and the strategic pursuit of Korean unification.
Resilience of democratic institutions
Despite this tragic event, South Korean democratic institutions ultimately held firm. The military's decision to allow the National Assembly to convene and vote, despite initial orders to the contrary, demonstrates the strength of the country's democratic foundations. This resilience in the face of a potential constitutional crisis should provide some solace to those concerned about the stability of South Korea's democracy.
This episode underscores a critical point: the institutional checks and balances within South Korea are robust enough to prevent authoritarian overreach. For citizens and democracies worldwide, this resilience offers a glimmer of hope. It proves that even in crises, adherence to democratic principles can triumph. However, the incident also highlights the fragility of public trust, which may take years to rebuild.
Related
Paradoxically, this incident could serve as an example of the strength of representative democracy and the power of the people and a republican form of government over those who would attempt to implement authoritarian rule. When the Korean people in the North and South pursue their fundamental human right of self-determination of government, they will seek democracy and freedom rather than living under the yoke of a dictator.
Global implications for South Korea as a pivotal state
South Korea's status as a global pivotal state amplifies the international ramifications of Yoon's actions. As a nation with significant economic, cultural, and military clout, its political stability is closely monitored by allies and adversaries alike. This debacle risks undermining the credibility South Korea has built as a partner in the "arsenal of democracy."
Economically, labor unrest following the incident could disrupt global supply chains, exacerbating existing tensions in industries reliant on South Korean exports. Politically, it complicates trilateral cooperation with Japan and the United States, particularly in efforts to counterbalance China's regional ambitions. Moreover, as South Korea has positioned itself as a champion of human rights, accusations of hypocrisy could weaken its moral authority on the global stage.
The disruption of Yoon's foreign policy agenda
President Yoon's administration has pursued an assertive foreign policy, focusing on trilateral cooperation with Japan and the United States, support for a free and open Indo-Pacific, and advocacy for human rights in North Korea. Yet, the martial law episode threatens to derail these initiatives. The opposition, empowered by Yoon's misstep, may seek to dismantle key components of his agenda should they ascend to power.
Of particular concern is the potential unraveling of the progress made in trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan, and the United States. The Yoon administration had made significant strides in improving relations with Japan and strengthening the trilateral relationship, which is crucial for regional security and countering threats from North Korea and China. The martial law incident may make it more challenging to maintain the momentum of recent diplomatic and security breakthroughs.
The most concerning aspect of this potential rollback is the likely abandonment of the 8.15 Unification Doctrine. Yoon's emphasis on human rights, information campaigns, and the long-term vision of a unified Korea aligns with international norms and the aspirations of many Koreans. However, opposition leaders may revert to naïve and dangerous policies rooted in engagement and coexistence with Pyongyang, effectively sidelining the doctrine's transformative potential and giving a "win" to Kim Jong Un's political warfare strategy.
Kim Jong Un's exploitation of South Korea's crisis
Kim Jong Un's regime is a master of political warfare and blackmail diplomacy. South Korea's current turmoil offers an opening for North Korea to intensify its subversive activities. The United Front Department and elements of the 225th Bureau are likely to exploit divisions within South Korean society, deepening polarization and undermining trust in democratic institutions.
This strategy, which aligns with Pyongyang's longstanding objective to destabilize the South, could also see an uptick in cyberattacks, propaganda dissemination, and the mobilization of sleeper agents. Such efforts aim to discredit South Korea internationally and weaken its resolve domestically, further complicating the pursuit of unification.
Ironically, these are the threats that President Yoon feared and that the decision to implement martial will only make worse.
The future of the 8.15 Unification Doctrine
Again, the most worrying aspect of this crisis is its potential impact on the human rights agenda and the pursuit of a free and unified Korea. The 8.15 Unification Doctrine, unveiled by President Yoon in August, represented a bold new approach to inter-Korean relations, emphasizing freedom, peace, and prosperity as core values for unification. This doctrine placed human rights at the forefront of South Korea's policy toward the North and sought to empower North Korean citizens with information and hope for a better future.
The martial law debacle threatens to discredit this important work. If President Yoon is forced to step down or is impeached as seems very likely, there is a real risk that his successor may abandon the pursuit of a free and unified Korea in favor of reverting to failed policies of the past. This could mean a return to naïve hopes of negotiating denuclearization and peaceful co-existence with Kim Jong Un while ignoring the human rights abuses suffered by 25 million Koreans in the North.
The potential loss of momentum on the human rights front is particularly concerning. The 8.15 Unification Doctrine recognized that human rights are not just a moral imperative but also a national security issue. By educating the Korean people in the North about their universal human rights and empowering them to create change, the doctrine sought to address the root causes of the North Korean threat, the power of the Kim family regime. Abandoning this approach would not only be a setback for human rights but could also undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace, stability, and ultimately denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
Conclusion: Navigating the fallout
The martial law catastrophe underlines the interconnectedness of domestic politics and international relations in South Korea. While democratic institutions thankfully proved resilient, the broader implications for Yoon's administration, the 8.15 Unification Doctrine, and the Korean Peninsula are profound. The global community must watch closely and offer support where possible, ensuring that the pursuit of a free and unified Korea remains a priority.
This moment serves as a reminder that democracy's strength lies not only in its institutions but also in the collective will to uphold its values by government officials, the military, and the people. For South Korea, the path forward demands reflection, resilience, and recommitment to the ideals that underpin its democratic republic. The fate of millions depends on it.
The martial law debacle is not an insurmountable setback. The resilience shown by South Korean democratic institutions in the face of this crisis provides a foundation upon which to rebuild. By recommitting to the principles of human rights, democracy, and peaceful unification, South Korea and its allies can work to mitigate the negative consequences of this incident and continue the important work of pursuing a free and unified Korea. The stakes are too high, and the potential benefits too great, to allow this setback to derail the vision of a peaceful, prosperous, and united Korean Peninsula. Someday the Korean people can achieve a United Republic of Korea (UROK).
David Maxwell is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel who has spent more than 30 years in the Asia Pacific region. He specializes in Northeast Asian Security Affairs and unconventional and political warfare. He is Vice President of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy and a Senior Fellow at the Global Peace Foundation. Following retirement, he was Associate Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is on the board of directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the OSS Society, and is a contributing editor to Small Wars Journal.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
21. South Korean President Could Declare Martial Law Again, Says Ruling Party Leader
This is a key excerpt. It is going to take a thorough and objective investigation to sort out the claims and actions.
It is good to know the commander of the Special Warfare Command was personally on the scene at the National Assembly, though I am concerned with reports regarding the decision not to provide live ammunition to his soldiers. First, soldiers should always be properly armed. Second, soldiers have to have good order and discipline in complex and uncertain situations. What if they faced armed opposition? The recollection of Kwangju hangs over the decision making of ROK military leaders but it must not prevent proper military actions.
Excerpts:
The Yoon government is now contending with contradictory versions of how the hours of martial law unfolded, even from within the same government ministries. There were also signs of internal defiance in the moment.
South Korea’s head of the National Intelligence Service told reporters on Friday that Yoon had not ordered the arrest of lawmakers and others. But one of his deputies, testifying at a closed-door legislative hearing with both major parties, said the opposite, citing a phone call he had with Yoon right after martial law had been declared, according to an opposition legislator who attended the hearing.
Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-keun, who commanded the special forces soldiers who went into the National Assembly building in the hours during which martial law was in force, said he had defied orders from his superiors—even knowing it was insubordination, in a livestreamed interview he granted opposition lawmakers on Friday. Lt. Gen. Kwak said he refused to order the removal of lawmakers from the legislative building because it was “clearly an illegal act.”
South Korean President Could Declare Martial Law Again, Says Ruling Party Leader
Acting defense chief says he would refuse orders to institute martial law if asked; President faces impeachment vote as early as Saturday
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/south-korean-president-could-declare-martial-law-again-says-ruling-party-leader-053bbf98?mod=latest_headlines
By Timothy W. Martin
Follow and Soobin Kim
Updated Dec. 6, 2024 5:14 am ET
You may also like
0:05
Playing
0:14
/
0:54
Tap For Sound
South Korea’s ruling party leader has suggested that President Yoon Suk Yeol could move to declare martial law again. Photo: Getty Images
SEOUL—The head of South Korea’s ruling party suggested the country’s president could move again to declare martial law, as the embattled Yoon Suk Yeol sees support wane.
The notion that South Korea could fall into martial order for the second time this week unnerved a country already on edge. Its main stock indexes fell. South Korea’s acting defense chief told reporters he would refuse orders to institute martial law if asked.
The right-wing Yoon faces an impeachment vote that could occur as early as Saturday, after placing South Korea under martial law—the first such occurrence since the country shed military rule for democracies decades ago. After several hours, Yoon was forced to reverse his decision.
A two-thirds majority vote at the National Assembly is required to kick-start a lengthy process that would eventually remove Yoon from office. Opposition lawmakers will need to peel off some members of Yoon’s party to succeed, with at least one already pledging support.
At a Friday leadership meeting, Han Dong-hoon, the leader of Yoon’s People Power Party, said that Yoon’s presidential powers should be swiftly suspended, arguing inaction is putting the country in danger. Yoon has yet to admit wrongdoing and failed to take measures against military officials who engaged in unlawful actions, Han said.
Han Dong-hoon, leader of the People Power Party, said Yoon’s presidential authority should be suspended. Photo: Yonhap/AFP/Getty Images
“Should Yoon continue to serve as president, I think there is great risk for extreme actions like this martial-law declaration to happen again,” Han said. “I believe now is the time to think only about South Korea and its people.”
After meeting with Yoon for just under an hour Friday afternoon, Han told reporters that he would not change his stance on suspending Yoon’s powers.
South Korea’s presidential office didn’t immediately comment. Yoon hasn’t spoken publicly since lifting martial law in an early Wednesday morning address, about six hours after declaring the order.
Sinking Popularity
A 63-year-old career prosecutor, Yoon is now fighting for his political life from inside and outside his party ranks. His popularity sank to record lows. Just 13% of respondents asked after the martial-law declaration approve of Yoon’s job performance, a 6-point drop from the prior week, according to a Gallup Korea poll released on Friday.
Political polarization in South Korea is worse than in the U.S., and the highest among 19 countries surveyed by Pew Research Center. In this year alone, South Korea’s opposition leader has been stabbed in the neck, another lawmaker was clubbed in the head and top officials from both parties have been prosecuted. And now, the country is set to hold an impeachment vote for the first time since 2016.
Nearly three-quarters of South Koreans back impeaching Yoon, according to a Realmeter poll from Wednesday.
Opposition lawmakers need fewer than 10 ruling-party members to win the impeachment vote at the country’s unicameral, 300-seat National Assembly. On Friday, Rep. Cho Kyoung-tae, a six-term lawmaker, became the first ruling-party legislator to publicly express support for Yoon’s impeachment.
Protesters holding images of President Yoon Suk Yeol call for his resignation. Photo: Kyodonews/Zuma Press
With the country plunged into political chaos, South Korea has seen a suspension of much of its diplomacy and government affairs.
Seoul canceled a planned state visit this week by Sweden’s prime minister. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has scrapped plans to travel to South Korea, according to U.S. officials. Austin had planned to visit Seoul in the near term, although details hadn’t been publicized. The Biden administration—which had not been given advance notice of Yoon’s move to declare martial law—decided that a visit by the defense secretary wouldn’t be appropriate given the recent turmoil in the country.
South Korea’s entire cabinet, excluding Yoon and the prime minister, have tendered their resignation. On Thursday, the first official to step down was Yoon’s defense minister, who according to Seoul’s military had proposed the use of martial law to Yoon. Other remaining ministers canceled many of their public meetings.
South Korea’s benchmark Kospi index fell by as much as nearly 2% in midday trading before closing down 0.6% Friday. The Kosdaq slipped up to 4%, though ended the day down 1.4%.
‘Teleported back’
The Yoon government is now contending with contradictory versions of how the hours of martial law unfolded, even from within the same government ministries. There were also signs of internal defiance in the moment.
South Korea’s head of the National Intelligence Service told reporters on Friday that Yoon had not ordered the arrest of lawmakers and others. But one of his deputies, testifying at a closed-door legislative hearing with both major parties, said the opposite, citing a phone call he had with Yoon right after martial law had been declared, according to an opposition legislator who attended the hearing.
Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-keun, who commanded the special forces soldiers who went into the National Assembly building in the hours during which martial law was in force, said he had defied orders from his superiors—even knowing it was insubordination, in a livestreamed interview he granted opposition lawmakers on Friday. Lt. Gen. Kwak said he refused to order the removal of lawmakers from the legislative building because it was “clearly an illegal act.”
Three military commanders involved in imposing martial law have been suspended from their duties, the defense ministry said in a Friday statement. Those three and seven others are being investigated by military prosecutors for charges of treason and other violations, the defense ministry said.
Given South Korea’s painful memories of military rule, Yoon’s decision to institute martial law reflected a lack of understanding of his country and fellow citizens, said Rob Rapson, a retired former senior U.S. diplomat in South Korea. He was first posted to the country decades ago when curfews, press restrictions and violent suppression of protests were common.
“I feel like I’ve been surrealistically teleported back to the Korea I first experienced as a U.S. diplomat in 1984,” Rapson said. “Yoon can’t come back from this.”
Write to Timothy W. Martin at Timothy.Martin@wsj.com
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the December 6, 2024, print edition as 'South Korean President Could Declare Martial Law Again, Says Ruling Party Leader'.
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
