South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol’s abortive attempt to impose martial law has triggered a very serious constitutional firestorm and presented the US with an extremely complicated challenge. Yoon pathetically claimed he was responding to a growing North Korean threat “within his government”, but it was obvious that his dramatic move was born out of his frustration with the National Assembly.
Having been elected by the slimmest majority ever in 2022 and then for his “ruling” party to suffer a landside loss to the opposition Democratic Party in the National Assembly elections of mid-2024, Yoon had been plunged into a period of limbo for the last three years of his presidency. All this was graphically illustrated by his very active use of the presidential veto on House legislation – and none more so than on its efforts to prosecute corruption charges against his wife. And the House returned fire.
Throughout this period, Yoon’s public opinion rankings had fallen to perilous depths. The immediate public response to his martial law moves was one of wide public outrage – which its rapid withdrawal did nothing to mitigate. Protest groups quickly started to fill the streets around the National Assembly and the crisis moved up a level. After his failed attempt to have the military (organised by his defence minister) block the House discussion of the matter, the DP eventually mustered the requisite votes — including a few from Yoon’s party — to launch impeachment proceedings against the president. Importantly, the three major centrist/conservative Korean dailies were quick to criticise Yoon’s attempts to stall the impeachment process.
As one (Dong-A) set out their views in similar terms to the other two:
“Seven out of 10 South Koreans believe President Yoon Suk-yeol has lost his legitimacy as president following the December 3 declaration of martial law, according to a Dong-A Ilbo New Year survey. The poll found that 70.4% of respondents believe the Constitutional Court should uphold the National Assembly’s impeachment motion against Yoon, almost three times higher than 25.4% who think it should be dismissed. Separately, 70.8% of respondents said Yoon should resign, regardless of the court’s decision.
“On whether President Yoon’s actions during martial law constituted treason, 67.2% of respondents agreed. Only 27.8% opposed the idea. Two-thirds of the respondents considered Yoon’s deployment of armed forces to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission, along with the circulation of arrest lists, as acts of insurrection. Further, as much as 72.3% disagreed with Yoon’s justification that martial law was necessary to address allegations of election fraud.
“These results highlight the awareness of the people, who have experienced mature democracies, on democratic commonsense and principles. The survey reflects the prevailing public sentiment after nearly a month of unfolding events, including the impeachment motion, ongoing investigations into former Defence Minister Kim Yong-hyun and others linked to martial law, and the broader implications of Yoon’s actions. It was only among the conservative respondents, who comprised 27% of the survey, that opposition to impeachment (53.4%) outweighed supporters for the motion (41.9%). Even among centrist respondents, 77.0% supported the Constitutional Court’s approval of the impeachment motion.”
Yoon then began to harden his position on impeachment and continued stalling his participation in the process – including through the first acting president who began to wheel out legal arguments such as those aimed at blocking the Constitutional Court filling its vacancies. All of which in turn led to his impeachment by the National Assembly and the appointment of another acting president. By now, things were well and truly into uncharted legal and political waters. The latest acting president eventually agreed to a deal over the new Constitutional Court judges which has allowed it to announce its first hearings on 14 January. However, the DP remains concerned about Yoon’s legal manoeuvrings to fight impeachment and it has pushed hard on the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials to investigate criminal charges against Yoon. He has used his Presidential Security Service to refuse acceptance of CIO arrest warrants.
In turn, the CIO drama has added to the confusion and allowed Yoon to try to muddy the waters while he and his team work out a strategy for coping with both the impeachment process in the Constitutional Court and the CIO criminal probes. It also highlights the more fundamental issue of the acting president and the non-partisan stewardship role of the caretaker government in this limbo period, with new presidential elections looming and a change of government likely if impeachment is successful. While its non-partisan role seemed to have worked well enough with the tragic Muan aircraft accident and the day-to-day government roles, we now have a situation where the Commander of the Presidential Security force is refusing to accept a command from the caretaker government to allow the CIO access to Yoon. The latest development is that the CIO has passed the arrest warrant to the National Police (responsible to the acting president) for transmission to Yoon.
From the outset, the US has appeared wrongfooted and (understandably) very careful to maintain a low profile. But there are now more signs of growing concern in Washington about the impact of Yoon’s actions for the US, especially given the elevated position President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken have given to the US/ROK/Japan trilateral relationship in their legacy claims. The White House and Blinken have both used the same term — “ironclad” — for the bilateral alliance, capped in the great democratic wave they have inspired around the world!
Only history will probably reveal the truth, but despite denials of prior knowledge of Yoon’s action, the joint command structure of the substantial US and ROK forces in Korea is such that planning, logistics and transport could hardly have been undertaken without some American knowledge. Likewise, the back channels between Washington and Seoul surely would have been hyperactive after the operation was launched and probably instrumental in having it cancelled. US public comment has been sparse, though pro consul Kurt Russell did have a brief press conference with the ROK Ambassador in Washington after which he proclaimed that alliance ties were unaffected by the crisis and the US Government was continuing to work with the acting president and ROK Government. The US ambassador in Seoul and the Commander of US Forces also met the current acting President – again to reinforce the word that the bilateral relationship was working as normal.
Soon after, the acting president and Yoon’s support team upped the ante with much more emphasis on the vital importance of the alliance relationship with the US and there was an explosion of the Stars and Stripes among the pro-Yoon demonstrators. The word was out to push the US line for Yoon. Blinken, in a brief aside at a press conference in Jordan (en route on his final lap to the ROK), indicated that the scene was changing in Korea. Around the same time, the Pentagon spokesperson added a caveat to her analysis about the state of play in the US bilateral relationship with the tantalising comment that “our mil mil” relations are fine. Just how the US/ROK alliance — let alone anything else — will be managed in this limbo period is bound to throw up major challenges for both sides. All the more if the US side fails to take account of the majority opposition DK’s views and allows itself to be locked into backing Yoon.
If that were not daunting enough for all the main stakeholders currently to contemplate, the rapidly approaching inauguration of President Trump will introduce a new and highly unpredictable elephant in the room! Apart from concerns about his high-level meetings with Kim Jong-un during his first presidency, he proved to be very tough on the ROK in public commentary and demands for burden sharing for the US forces in the ROK. With the addition of highly controversial issues on EVs, microchips and wider tariff threats, Koreans are looking forward to the future with Trump with considerable trepidation. With Elon Musk playing such an influential role with Trump, the back channels from Mar-a-Lago to Seoul have also probably been running high – with assistance from the influential Korean community in the US. Just a few days after the appearance of US flags in pro-Yoon demonstrations, came the widespread use of the Trump placard “Stop the Steal” and some demonstrators began calling on Trump to protect Yoon!
As of this writing, tensions in Korea are rising, with the probability increasing that eventually the issue will be sorted out on the streets in what could be a very messy scene.