South Korea’s prolonged political crisis appears to have no end in sight. It is just over a month since South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared, then lifted, martial law. Since then, the domestic and regional challenges have been multiplying. To manage the chaos, citizens need to set aside their differences and find a way out of the impasse. That would not be easy.
Animosity between factions runs deep. Attempts to arrest Yoon, who was impeached on Dec. 14, have so far ended in vain. His supporters have marched in the streets, calling for authorities to “Stop the Steal” — a reference to the chant that US president-elect Donald Trump’s camp echoed against US President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, alleging his victory was rigged.
Yoon has remained frustratingly defiant. He is also under criminal investigation for insurrection, but has vowed to “fight until the end,” hiding out in his Seoul home protected by a blockade of buses, barbed wire, crowds of supporters and his own armed security guards. It is unclear whether authorities would be able to arrest him without risking a violent confrontation.
His fate has become a lightning rod for South Korea’s growing political divisions. The gap between loyalists and those who want him out is widening, a worrying development in a relatively young democracy. In an echo of the US election denialism four years ago, a Hankook Research poll showed that 65 percent of Yoon’s conservative People Power Party members believe April last year’s parliamentary polls — in which his party suffered a massive loss — were fraudulent. In comparison, only 29 percent of the public believe this.
The longer this fiasco drags on, the more difficult it would be for the current government to address the nation’s most pressing problems. At home, it must deal with a weak economy and struggling currency, which fell 10 percent last quarter versus the US dollar. In a reminder of the threat North Korea poses, this week Kim Jong-un’s regime fired the first missile of the year toward the Sea of Japan. Pyongyang’s closer collaboration with Moscow means that the North could have access to new technology to help it further its nuclear weapons program.
The threat is now so acute that many increasingly support nuclearization, Robert Kelly of Pusan National University and Kim Min-hyung of Kyung Hee University wrote in Foreign Affairs. According to a 2022 poll, 71 percent of South Koreans favor such a move. These sorts of conversations should be the focus of South Korean political life, rather than the domestic crisis playing out today on the streets.
Seoul also has to navigate its ties with Washington. The missile test took place while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in the capital, talking up the alliance. However, this relationship is only as good as the individuals maintaining it. Yoon shared a good rapport with Biden, and together with then-Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida, they helped to create a partnership to act as a bulwark against China’s rising influence.
There is no guarantee that Trump would follow Biden’s lead. In a speech on Tuesday, Trump spoke of ambitions to use “economic force” to compel Canada to become the 51st state in the US and suggested calling the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” There was no mention of his plans for Asia, but Trump is likely to usher in an unpredictable era that could include getting partners like Seoul to pay for their own defense. None of this is encouraging for South Korea’s new leader, whoever that eventually is.
Against the backdrop of a complicated geopolitical environment, citizens must put their country first and change their political culture, as Shin Gi-wook, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, wrote about politics in South Korea, where several presidents have ended up in disgrace or jailed.
“Demonizing opponents, divisive identity politics, and insular political fandoms and populism have no place in a healthy democracy,” he wrote.
The alternative is further instability. Even if it is not the Trump administration’s first priority, South Korea needs the US on its side. There are approximately 28,500 US troops in the country, helping to provide a much needed security buffer against the North. Any drawdown in numbers would leave vulnerable the same political parties and citizens who are putting short-term interests before national ones.
This ongoing constitutional crisis cannot go on indefinitely. Yoon and his supporters should allow the legal process to play out unimpeded. His opponents, in return, could consider toning down their rhetoric in parliament — their goals would not be met through a protracted gridlock.
A democracy is only as good as the respect afforded to its institutions, and the value voters give it. Compromise and unity is what is needed now, not division and strife. Otherwise, South Koreans face a future where their country is likely to be paralyzed for months, possibly years. It is they who would suffer the most.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS