（Dr. Hoo Chiew Ping Visiting Fellow, Institute of International Relations, National Cheng-Chi University）
Yoon Seok-yeol’s near-midnight declaration of martial law will haunt international news in the months to come. His rationale is being questioned. His actions during and after lifting martial law bewilder observers. Did Yoon have to go so far? What are the implications for South Korea’s future and its international standing?
Political schisms in South Korea
We must first focus on the extreme polarization between the conservative and progressive factions in South Korean politics, as evidenced in Yoon’s many speeches. In his martial law declaration, Yoon mentioned “anti-state force”. In a televised speech before the second impeachment vote, Yoon blamed the opposition’s obstructions, which had led to legislative gridlock. Yoon had earlier claimed that the Democratic Party threatened national interests when it rejected the ruling People Power Party’s budget requests and executive appointments. Although not mentioned publicly, opposition lawmakers’ efforts to investigate scandals involving Yoon and spouse Kum Keon-hee to support their attempts to impeach Yoon also contributed to Yoon’s desperation. Yoon was also aware of increasing dissent within his own party, particularly over his spouse’s questionable conduct – the most infamous being the Dior bag bribery incident revealed days before the general election. Yoon ordered members of his own party arrested along with key opposition lawmakers to resolve his political stalemate. Polarization in South Korean politics significantly influenced Yoon’s decision to declare martial law.
Insurrection charges
Yoon and aides involved in the martial law declaration are being investigated by the legislature, police and intelligence agency. One of the investigations aims to determine whether, in October 2024, Yoon had ordered drones to be flown close to the North Korean border to provoke a hostile reaction from the North Koreans. The only legal basis for the declaration of martial law in South Korea is an invasion by North Korea. But North Korea did not invade; instead, it protested and warned South Korea. The Yoon government has denied it ordered such an action.
As North Korea did not react with hostility, it is particularly abhorrent to frame the opposition party as being sympathetic to North Korea and an “anti-state force”, that is, the internal national security threat required to justify martial law. Using such rhetoric to target a democratic opposition is profoundly inappropriate.
Democratic Resilience
Yoon’s vendettas, aggravated by political schisms, have threatened the hard-earned thirty-year-old democracy in South Korea. Many view the current crisis as indicative of the fragility of Korean democracy. But young and old alike, lawmakers and even the military (including those dispatched to arrest or block lawmakers at the National Assembly) acted swiftly to save democracy. Many were anxious that blood would be spilled during the military-civilian standoff at the National Assembly. The military, including the Special Forces dispatched to land on the roof of the National Assembly, were reportedly surprised by the order. They chose to be lightly armed or unarmed and eventually permitted the lawmakers to enter the National Assembly unharmed. If the military had not stood down, South Korean democracy would have significantly retrograded.
Constitutional Crisis?
The modern constitution of the Republic of Korea was drafted to check its presidents from wielding too much power. As South Korea started its transition to democracy only in 1987, it is still a young democracy. Since the morning of December 4, there have been protests in Seoul and other major cities, calling for President Yoon’s resignation or impeachment.Labor unions around the country launched mass strikes, vowing not to stop until Yoon stepped down. The People Power Party convened an emergency meeting the morning following the declaration of martial law but could not reach a decision to expel Yoon from the party. Instead, the Party offered Yoon a grace period of 48 hours to step down and issued an apology to save the Party’s reputation and Yoon from impeachment. Yoon showed no sign that he would resign voluntarily and instead asked Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to resign.
Impeachment proceedings began the day following the declaration of martial law. The impeachment bill passed only after it had been tabled twice. According to Professor Park Kyung-sin of Korea University’s Law School, Yoon’s martial law declaration is a violation of the Korean Constitution and Professor Park concluded it would be just a matter of time before impeachment will be concluded successfully.Yoon has assembled his defense team as of December 16 and there are worries he would escape impeachment because of his legal background.
South Korea needs to resolve this crisis successfully to continue being an example where people and system work together to protect democratic values and principles.
Implications for South Korea’s foreign relations and international standing
The lawmakers who ending the martial law crisis saved South Korea from instability, loss of credibility, upheaval and the resulting withdrawal of foreign investments. The Swedish Prime Minister, who was scheduled to hold a summit meeting with Yoon the weekend of the martial law declaration, cancelled his state visit. The South Korean won plummeted and its performance is weaker after the martial law crisis, though some experts have suggested that the Korean won’s poor performance is part of a global trend, of which the weak performance of the Japanese yen is another example. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs quickly issued a statement assuring allies and partners that the country’s foreign policy remains unchanged. But seasoned observers of South Korea expect that any change of government will lead to modifications.
Two developments may break this political gridlock. First, Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party, held back from pursuing impeaching Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who is Acting President after Yoon’s successful impeachment. If Lee had sought to punish the rival party for destabilizing South Korea, conditions would be much more dire. Second, the martial law crisis has led to the establishment of a task force, consisting of members of both parties, to review potential legal loopholes to prevent similar incidents in the future. The task force is also working to ensure the post-impeachment transition is credible and restore political stability.
Yoon, a former lawyer and prosecutor, has no excuse to be ignorant of the consequences of a coup d’etat. Yoon’s excuses he was acting on the advice of Defense Minister Kim and the martial law he declared would be ended soon do not hold water. Yoon must face legal consequences to remind future presidents that no one is above the law.
