46

used images: South Korean President Yoon Seok-yeol addresses citizens // Internet

© Davydov O.V., 05.12.2024

On December 3, President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea announced the imposition of martial law in the country. In a televised address to the nation, he claimed that this measure was necessary to ensure security and eliminate «pro-North Korean anti-state forces.» He emphasized that the primary threat to the constitutional order was posed by the activities of the National Assembly, the country’s parliament. The president accused lawmakers of paralyzing the state’s functions by blocking appointments of high-ranking officials, as well as hindering the passage of budget laws and other important legislative acts. The martial law decree included a ban on all political activities, including the work of the National Assembly and local governments. Strikes and demonstrations were also prohibited, and media outlets were to come under government control.

The president’s actions had a shocking impact on the public, political elites, and even members of his own administration, who were caught off guard. This decision, as it turns out, was made hastily and involved a small circle of individuals, primarily the Minister of Defense and heads of the security services. Even the prime minister and the leader of the ruling party were unaware of the upcoming initiatives.

However, opposition political forces quickly regrouped. Despite attempts by the police and special forces to seize the National Assembly complex, lawmakers held an emergency session on the night of December 4, demanding that the president revoke the martial law decree. Under the provisions of the country’s constitution, this decision was mandatory, and the president was forced to comply.

As a result, martial law lasted no more than six hours, effectively amounting to an empty declaration, which reflects the short-sightedness of Yoon Suk-yeol and his team, as well as the lack of a well-thought-out strategy in their actions. The administration either failed or refused to anticipate public reactions to its «unconventional» measures, which were easily predictable. The decision to implement extraordinary military measures in a country with an active political population, strengthening democratic traditions, and a well-established parliamentary system was, for Yoon, tantamount to political suicide. Since the authoritarian regimes of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, South Koreans have developed a strong aversion to authoritarianism and military involvement in politics. It is worth recalling that martial law was last imposed in 1980 to suppress democratic protests in Gwangju, which already evokes unpleasant associations.

A few days after the events, South Korean analysts and experts began to reflect on what had actually occurred and what the new political situation in the country might lead to. The president’s explanations for his actions seem absurd, even laughable. Statements about the need to combat «pro-North Korean sentiments» are a blatant distortion of the facts. There are no organizations or influential politicians in the country who support Pyongyang, aside from a few marginal figures. On the contrary, rejection of North Korea’s missile and nuclear ambitions, along with criticism of its political regime, are the very issues that unite the nation.

What is concerning is that Yoon Suk-yeol’s dangerous confrontational rhetoric, which demonstrates hostility towards North Korea and almost openly proclaims a course of «regime change» in the neighboring country, is not welcomed by all in South Korea. The South Korean center-left opposition generally advocates for the restoration of interrupted ties, reconciliation with North Korea, and the resolution of existing issues between the two Koreas through dialogue. This pragmatic approach has been a source of growing discontent for Yoon.

Disagreements between the president and the opposition on other matters (such as constant calls for the dismissal of ministers and other officials, and sharp disputes over budgetary issues) are unpleasant but ultimately technical problems, and do not justify the imposition of unprecedentedly harsh measures. Instead, Yoon’s actions seem to indicate his inability to find common ground with his opponents and a desire to push his own political agenda at any cost. There are rumors that the president has become seriously entangled in personal matters: in recent weeks, scandals involving the use of political influence, in which his wife is implicated, have surrounded the head of state. This, too, has led to a record decline in his approval ratings. In this context, the martial law episode appears to be a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to seize the initiative and alter the situation in his favor.

As a result of recent events, opposition forces have significantly strengthened their position, obtaining strong arguments in favor of removing the president from office. A motion for impeachment, presented at a plenary session of the National Assembly, was supported by 191 lawmakers (out of 300) and will be considered within the next two days. For a positive decision, which must then be submitted to the Constitutional Court for approval, a two-thirds majority of parliamentary members is required, meaning at least eight lawmakers from the ruling People Power Party (PPP) must support it. The chairman of this party, Han Dong-hoon, has so far maintained a dual position. He distanced himself from the president’s «unconstitutional» decree and even suggested that the president leave the party. At the same time, he believes that the decision to impeach will only exacerbate the difficulties and could lead to a chaotic situation.

In any case, it is becoming evident that, regardless of the impeachment decision, South Korea is entering a period of prolonged political crisis. The main elements of this crisis are sharp contradictions between the ruling circles and opposition forces, as well as between the executive and legislative branches of government. Society is polarized, significant dissatisfaction has accumulated, and there is no consensus in political circles on how to address the country’s complex socio-economic problems. Uncertainty also remains regarding the prospects for «unfreezing» relations with the northern neighbor. In any event, it seems unlikely that the current president, who has already seriously discredited himself, will be able to effectively carry out his duties until the end of his term, which expires in just over two years.

The United States has been closely monitoring the situation in South Korea, and there are grounds to believe that Washington insisted that Yoon Suk-yeol restore the status quo and make concessions to his political opponents. The White House may rightly be concerned that destabilization in the South could complicate the military-political situation on the Korean Peninsula, disrupt important export-import flows, and damage global supply chains, in which South Korea plays a crucial role.

The serious lesson, it seems, is that young Asian democracies, which are traditionally promoted as a model for developing countries, are not as resilient to sudden political upheavals as one might hope. Given this, the administration of Donald Trump will likely need to engage in a thorough reassessment of its entire policy on the Korean Peninsula, not only with respect to North Korea but also regarding its approach to South Korea.