Coup attempt in South Korea: What was it all about?

Coup attempt in South Korea: What was it all about?

RT

The political crisis that culminated in South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s short-lived attempt to establish martial law, which was lifted just five and a half hours after he declared it, did not come out of the blue. While the opposition has been quick to spread its own narrative, there is no doubt that the situation is more complex and requires closer analysis.

The situation in context

The issue goes back to the 2022 South Korea presidential elections. At that time, Yoon Suk Yeol – a former prosecutor general who, following a conflict with then-South Korean President Moon Jae-in had switched to the conservative camp (despite the fact that earlier, Yoon had prosecuted two conservative presidents) – and won the presidential elections by 0.73%, an unprecedentedly thin margin in Korean history.

From the start, Yoon faced a challenge, since the opposition, the Democratic Party, held a qualified majority slightly more than half but less than two-thirds of the seats in the National Assembly.

This power dynamic allowed South Korea’s Democratic Party to block presidential initiatives while pushing their own agendas, which in turn were often vetoed by the president. This situation largely paralyzed legislative activity and fueled the polarization of society.

The parliamentary elections in April 2024 did little to change things. While these elections have been called a significant defeat for the ruling party, the conservatives actually garnered slightly more votes than four years earlier (108 versus 103). The Democratic Party failed to secure a two-thirds majority, but it still held a qualified majority, which allows to pass or block legislation without regard for political opponents. At that point, it became clear that the crisis that had paralyzed the national legislature would persist for the remainder of Yoon’s term.

Simultaneously, the government initiated criminal proceedings against the controversial opposition leader, Lee Jae-myung, who had largely turned the Democratic Party into his personal fan club. 

There are substantial grounds for the allegations against him, and setting aside the political polarization of society, he would have likely been imprisoned anyway – even considering the fact that five key witnesses in various cases either died or committed suicide before they could testify. In one case, he received a suspended sentence, while another case resulted in acquittal (which was deemed a legal miracle). However, he still faces four additional verdicts.

Given that even a suspended sentence approved by the Supreme Court would end Lee’s political career, the situation swiftly evolved into a race of “who will bury whom first”: either the government would convict the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the latter would successfully initiate impeachment proceedings against the president.

Tensions within the ruling party, exacerbated by a campaign called “People for Impeachment” and backed by associated NGOs (including labor unions, university professors, and Catholic clergy), theoretically gave the opposition a chance to amass 200 votes – enough to proceed with impeachment regardless of the underlying reason. However, most of the accusations leveled against the president by opponents are as groundless as his own claims about anti-state or pro-North Korean forces, which he used to justify the imposed martial law.

Attempted coup and its possible causes

The events that unfolded during the “five hours of martial law” evoke memories of the military coups led by former South Korean presidents Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, and the saying, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

At 11pm local time on December 3, following a closed-door meeting allegedly initiated by the Minister of National Defense, President Yoon addressed the nation, and for the first time since 1979, imposed “martial law to protect the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the free constitutional order.”

Yoon accused the opposition of paralyzing the government with anti-state activities. “The National Assembly has become a haven for criminals, paralyzing the judicial and administrative systems and attempting to overthrow the free democratic system through legislative dictatorship,” he said.

Following Yoon’s address, General Park An-soo, the martial law commander, announced a decree banning all political activity, including protests and parties. Military vehicles entered the city; however, despite the blockade of the parliament building, lawmakers, backed by the crowd, managed to get inside. 190 MPs then unanimously voted to rescind martial law in accordance with the country’s constitution. Military forces began to withdraw, and shortly thereafter, the president made another address to the nation. He said that he wanted to safeguard the country, but since the parliament had opposed his decision, martial law will be lifted.

To say that this story has left me astounded is an understatement.

I had earlier considered the possibility of a “top-down coup,” but ultimately, it seemed quite unlikely. In my opinion, which was expressed in a recent article for the internet journal New Eastern Outlook, “President Yoon, despite his rigid stance, recognizes that he has neither a reason nor an opportunity to impose martial law … Tanks in the streets would spark mass protests, and the army is not prepared to fire at civilians. Ultimately, we could witness a scenario reminiscent of the 1991 Soviet coup attempt, when the opposition consolidated against the president which led to a number of casualties and [eventually resulted in] the complete defeat of the coup plotters.”

Adding to the intrigue, it became clear that neither the Prime Minister of South Korea nor the leader of the ruling party were informed of the president’s decision. The latter was among the first to label the move as incorrect and voted against it in parliament. News of the martial law even reached Washington. US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said that the US was watching the developments with “grave concern”and reminded Seoul that democracy underpins the US-South Korea alliance, and any political disputes should be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law.

What could have prompted the president to make such a seemingly misguided move? As I noted in a previous article, Yoon is pragmatic enough to understand the risks that would come with failure, so it is crucial to understand his motive. There are several theories at this point.

More...