South Korea is grappling with the longest presidential impeachment trial in the country’s history. The South Korean Constitutional Court is now overdue in delivering its verdict on impeached President Yoon Suk-yeol. If found guilty — as many expect — he would be forced to step down, triggering an election within 60 days, but the scars left on society would take much longer to heal.
The eight judges have presumably been worried about public opinion. Hundreds of thousands of people from rival camps have taken to the streets to protest ahead of the judgement. Schools and subway stations have been closed, with scores of police officers guarding the areas around the court.
The potential for violence in the days ahead is still great. Still, that should not take away from the urgent and necessary reform of the political system to prevent future abuse of power. Equally important is focusing on foreign policy challenges and North Korea’s growing nuclear threat. Neither would be easy.
US President Donald Trump’s administration has taken steps that could upend the US’ alliance system, putting countries like South Korea at risk. He has lashed out at Asian allies and has declined to confirm whether the US would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. All of this is pushing countries such as Japan and South Korea to think far more seriously about rearmament.
The growing threat from North Korea is also prompting debate about when — not if — Seoul should develop nuclear weapons of its own. Yoon’s administration has at times flirted with the idea of South Korea pursuing its own deterrent. Whatever happens to him, it is unclear how a future government might navigate this geopolitically fraught issue, despite the strength of domestic support.
These are the issues South Koreans should be focused on. Instead, they have been embroiled in yet another crisis, one that is very much the product of their political system.
Imposition of martial law shocked the nation. It was last introduced in 1979 by then-South Korean prime minister Choi Kyu-hah following the assassination of former president Park Chung-hee, who had seized power in a military coup in 1961. Yoon has yet to be formally removed from office, but it is the corrective that South Korean society urgently needs. Public opinion has been leaning toward impeachment, as Bloomberg Economics notes, with 58 percent of those surveyed in favor and 37 percent against.
Domestic reform is needed, but it is on the foreign policy front that Yoon’s loss might be most keenly felt, said Edward Howell, an expert and lecturer on the politics and international relations of North Korea, the Korean Peninsula and East Asia at the University of Oxford.
“Yoon strengthened the trilateral relationship between Japan, the US and South Korea in ways that forged new momentum in their ties,” he said. “His departure will throw some of that into disarray. South Koreans need to ask themselves whether it is in their best interests at this juncture to cut ties with these partners when the international picture is so tumultuous.”
Yoon’s government devoted significant political capital to improving historically fractious relations with Japan, working with the administration of former US president Joe Biden to bring the three nations together at a summit. Beijing bristled at what it saw as US hegemony in East Asia — but privately the initiative was welcomed in capitals across the region. That legacy is now in doubt, although recent trilateral naval exercises show all is not lost on this front.
However, Washington under Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pushed back a visit because of Seoul’s political uncertainty. Meanwhile, the US Department of Energy has designated South Korea as a “sensitive country,” a label typically reserved for nations viewed as a threat to national security or nuclear nonproliferation. Nuclear states such as India and Russia are on the list, but so are North Korea and Iran. The decision was reportedly made before Biden left office in January, but Seoul’s addition would no doubt complicate a delicate relationship.
The man most likely to be the next president is only compounding the problems. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung has made positive noises about the Washington-Seoul alliance, saying it should remain the “rock foundation” of national security. However, past rhetoric has been less encouraging. He has supported protests against Japan, and has talked up building ties with Beijing.
Before South Korea can fix its international picture, it needs to manage this internal turmoil. Power is highly concentrated in the presidency — adopting a parliamentary or semi-presidential system could help to distribute it more evenly between the executive and legislative branches, and provide a strong check on authoritarian tendencies. Delegating more responsibility to local governments would also reduce the centralization of power.
As political systems around the world have shown, democracy is hard work. It requires persistent effort. South Korea’s is worth protecting.
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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS