The declaration and then rescinding of martial law in South Korea by President Yoon Suk Yeol seems to have been engineered by the United States in order to shock the South Korean nation and position it firmly towards hostility towards China in line with the American plan to put the spotlight on China, and Chinese influence within the country. In order to achieve this the US has turned to provoking the battle of political models between democracy and authoritarianism in a spectacular manner in order to sway South Korean sympathies away from China.
South Korea is effectively a satellite of the US with military bases and approximately 30,000 US soldiers stationed in the country. Consequently, the US has enormous influence over both the political and military establishments in the country. President Yoon has further pushed South Korea towards the US with further defence agreements and with an increasing hostile economic position towards China, especially concerning semi conductors and strategic closeness with Japan as part of the US plan to encircle China.
However, China, through various tools such as attempting to strengthen a ‘civilisational brotherhood’ by fostering cultural institutes for Confucianism, support for the left leaning opposition to foment discord and instability, and entrapment through economics and trade has impacted South Korean society’s attitude towards China.
As a result, America has decided on the shock therapy approach in the form of snap martial law and threat of a military takeover in order to remind South Korean society of the difference between their previous existence under martial law and military rule until 1980 and life under liberal democracy thereafter.
This was evident in President Yoon’s martial law statement when he stated paradoxically that his aim for imposing martial law was to protect liberal democracy. Yoon stated;
“In order to protect liberal democracy from the threat of overthrowing the regime of the Republic of Korea by anti-state forces active within the Republic of Korea and to protect the safety of the people, the following is hereby declared throughout the Republic of Korea as of 23:00 on December 3, 2024…”
and Point 2
“All acts that deny or attempt to overthrow the liberal democratic system are prohibited, and fake news, public opinion manipulation, and false propaganda are prohibited”
The evidence for the American role is its political reaction. Despite calling the situation at the time of application of the martial law a “grave concern”, and despite it being an authoritarian action and opposed to the “democratic” model pushed by America, she did not call for the removal or replacement of President Yoon.
Instead she focused on the democratic model and institutions. US State Department spokesman Vedant Patel stated, “Every hope and expectation is that any political disputes will be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law” (3/12/24).
Furthermore, it was reported that it was the Defence minister who advised President Yoon to take the step towards imposing martial law. With the defence establishment under American control, this decision could not have been taken without American consent.
Moreover, it was clear from the President Yoon’s statement through a veiled threat, that Chinese influence was to be countered and highlighted as “anti-state” activity which included the strikes by doctors as evidence of attempts to destabilise society. Yoon stated;
“4. Strikes, work stoppages and rallies that incite social chaos are prohibited.
5. All medical personnel, including trainee doctors, who are on strike or have left the medical field must return to their jobs within 48 hours and work faithfully. Those who violate will be punished in accordance with the Martial Law.
6. Innocent ordinary citizens, excluding anti-state forces and other subversive forces, will be subject to measures to minimize inconvenience in their daily lives.”
Hence, it is clear that the declaration and rescinding of martial law had certain political objectives with regards to US policy and South Korean society with regards to China. It formed part of the battle of political models between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. This is further proved by the fact that the President is being put through an impeachment process, which may not materialise in his departure, but it will be used as an example of the difference between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. This was confirmed when Democratic Party member Kim Seungwon told the National Assembly as the impeachment motion was tabled:
“The people and the aides who protected parliament protected us with their bodies. The people won, and it’s now time for us to protect the people,”
With the US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell claiming that Yoon had made a serious misjudgment in stating;
“This is a powerful symbol of the fact that people were prepared to come out and make clear that this was a deeply illegitimate process,” he said. “One that would be met by the will of the people, and frankly, the will of the legislative bodies.”
Hence, the spectacular application and rescinding of martial law was meant as a shock therapy for South Korean society as a warning of authoritarianism and the danger of engaging with the Chinese authoritarian model.
Be the first to comment on "Shock Therapy – The Declaring and Rescinding of Martial Law in South Korea"