South Korean Leader’s Brief, but Ill-Advised Flirtation With Martial Law
Bruce Klingner /
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol abruptly declared martial law on Tuesday, blaming “anti-state forces” planning to overthrow the government.
Yoon had previously complained of media and opposition groups pushing false information to subvert society, but gave no indication he would take such drastic measures.
Yoon’s action reversed decades of South Korean democratization from its authoritarian past and undermined his legitimacy. North Korea was unlikely to take military advantage of the turmoil in South Korea, but will glean propaganda victories.
Though Yoon quickly rescinded his declaration, his action could lead to his impeachment. At a time when the United States is calling on regional partners to push back harder against the China threat, South Korea will be now be a less reliable partner.
Yoon claimed he imposed martial law to “protect liberal democracy and ensure the safety of the people” against unidentified forces operating covertly within South Korea to overthrow the government.
He provided no evidence or indications of any groups plotting a coup.
In a televised speech, Yoon accused the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) of “attempting to overthrow the free democratic system through legislative dictatorship.” He cited the DPK’s repeated impeachment motions, railroading a recent budget bill, and engaging in “anti-state activities plotting rebellion.”
He also vowed to eradicate pro-North Korea forces in South Korea.
Yoon declared that all political activities, dissemination of false news, and gatherings such as strikes and demonstrations were prohibited. He directed that all media and publications would be under government control and armored vehicles were deployed on the streets of Seoul.
Yoon invoked Article 77 of the South Korean Constitution, which allows for proclaiming martial law, but martial law is reserved for “time of war, armed conflict or similar national emergency.”
None of that appeared evident.
The provision specifies that the president shall comply when a majority of the members of the National Assembly requests the lifting of martial law.
People gather in front of the South Korean National Assembly on Wednesday in Seoul. South Korean lawmakers voted to lift the declaration of emergency martial law announced earlier by President Yoon Suk Yeol in a televised speech. (Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)
During the short six-hour time frame of martial law, military troops initially occupied the National Assembly, since activities of the legislature had been prohibited. However, the National Assembly subsequently met and voted to overrule Yoon’s martial law declaration, leading him to rescind it.
Yoon’s action was harshly criticized by leaders of both the opposition and ruling parties. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung declared Yoon’s proclamation was “illegal and unconstitutional,” while Han Dong-hoon, the leader of Yoon’s Ruling People Power Party, called the decision “wrong” and vowed to “stop it with the people.”
While tensions with North Korea have been high this year, there was no indication that Yoon’s action was in response to any imminent military action by Pyongyang. The regime is unlikely to conduct tactical or strategic military action as a result of the crisis, but there is always the danger of inadvertent escalation if either or both Koreas misinterpret military posturing of the other.
Yoon’s popularity has plummeted in recent months, and the opposition party scored a decisive victory in April’s National Assembly elections, routing Yoon’s ruling conservative party. Some legislators have advocated legal action against the first lady for alleged corruption and the impeachment of Yoon.
During his Aug. 15 Independence Day speech, which often is used by South Korean presidents to extol anti-Japanese nationalist themes, Yoon instead pushed for unification with North Korea while criticizing domestic “anti-freedom forces.” Yoon decried that unidentified groups were using false propaganda to undermine the nation by destroying the values and order of a free society.
But Yoon indicated that he would counter the propaganda by providing true information to the populace, rather than suggesting dire actions such as suspending constitutional rights. The president also vowed to uphold the principles of freedom and democracy in South Korea.
Yoon’s action was a damning reversal to decades of South Korean efforts to put its authoritarian past behind it. After gaining liberation from Japanese rule in 1945, the country endured military coups and repressive presidents who undermined the rule of law and human rights in South Korea.
After the achievement of democratization in the 1980s, South Korea became a beacon of freedom. The last time martial law was declared in South Korea was 1980.
The United States, which has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, could not be seen as condoning Yoon’s extraconstitutional actions since Washington has been falsely blamed in the past for approving South Korean authoritarian actions against its citizens.
However, the U.S. couldn’t criticize Yoon’s actions too strongly, since South Korea remains a critical ally in addressing regional security challenges, including the growing North Korean and Chinese military threats.
Though Yoon’s martial law was short-lived, the ramifications will be significant and long-lasting. His political days are likely numbered, since the populace will be united in its criticism and the majority opposition party will seek his impeachment.
If Yoon is removed from office, the opposition party would likely win the special election. Its policies are not in alignment with U.S. strategic objectives. The DPK favors conciliatory policies toward North Korea and China, while distancing South Korea from its alliance with the United States.