ֱ

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law
Yoon abruptly imposed martial law Tuesday night, vowing to eliminate “anti-state” forces after he struggled to push his agenda in parliament. (REUTERS)
Short Url
Updated 05 December 2024

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law
  • Yoon abruptly imposed martial law Tuesday night, vowing to eliminate “anti-state” forces after he struggled to push his agenda in parliament

SEOUL: South Korea’s main opposition party on Wednesday urged President Yoon Suk Yeol to resign immediately or face impeachment, hours after Yoon ended a short-lived martial law that prompted troops to encircle parliament before lawmakers voted to lift it.
Yoon’s senior advisers and secretaries offered to resign collectively and his Cabinet members, including Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, were also facing calls to step down, as the nation struggled to make sense of what appeared to be a poorly-thought-out stunt.
In the capital, tourists and residents walked around, traffic and construction were heard, and other than crowds of police holding shields, it seemed like a normal sunny, cold December morning.
On Tuesday night, Yoon abruptly imposed the emergency martial law, vowing to eliminate “anti-state” forces after he struggled to push forward his agenda in the opposition-dominated parliament. But his martial law was effective for only about six hours, as the National Assembly voted to overrule the president. The declaration was formally lifted around 4:30 a.m. during a Cabinet meeting.
The liberal opposition Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the 300-seat parliament, said Wednesday that its lawmakers decided to call on Yoon to quit immediately or they would take steps to impeach him.
“President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration was a clear violation of the constitution. It didn’t abide by any requirements to declare it,” the Democratic Party said in a statement. “His martial law declaration was originally invalid and a grave violation of the constitution. It was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment.”
Impeaching him would require support from two-thirds of the parliament, or 200 of its 300 members. The Democratic Party and other small opposition parties together have 192 seats. But when the parliament rejected Yoon’s martial law declaration in a 190-0 vote, 18 lawmakers from Yoon’s ruling People Power Party cast ballots supporting the rejection, according to National Assembly officials. The leader of the People Power Party, Han Dong-hun, who has long ties with Yoon dating to their days as prosecutors, criticized Yoon’s martial law declaration as “unconstitutional.” If Yoon is impeached, he’ll be stripped of his constitutional powers until the Constitutional Court can rule on his fate. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the No. 2 position in the South Korean government, would take over his presidential responsibilities. As calls mounted for Yoon’s Cabinet to resign, Han issued a public message pleading for patience and calling for Cabinet members to “fulfill your duties even after this moment.”
Yoon’s martial law declaration, the first of its kind in more than 40 years, harkened to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed martial law and other decrees that allowed them to station combat soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places like schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations. Such scenes of military intervention had not been seen since South Korea achieved a genuine democracy in the late 1980s until Tuesday night.
After Yoon’s declaration, troops carrying full battle gear, including assault rifles, tried to keep protesters away from the National Assembly as military helicopters flew overhead and landed nearby. One soldier pointed his assault rifle at a woman who was among protesters outside the building demanding that the martial law be lifted.
It wasn’t clear how the 190 lawmakers were able to enter a parliamentary hall to vote down Yoon’s martial law decree. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung livestreamed himself climbing over the wall, and while troops and police officers blocked some from entering they didn’t aggressively restrain or use force against others.
No major violence has been reported. The troops and police personnel were later seen leaving the grounds of the National Assembly after the parliamentary vote to lift the martial law. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik said: “Even with our unfortunate memories of military coups, our citizens have surely observed the events of today and saw the maturity of our military.”
Han, the People Power Party leader, demanded that Yoon explain his decision and fire Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who he said recommended the martial law decree to Yoon. The Defense Ministry has not commented.
Under South Korea’s constitution, the president can declare martial law during “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states” that require the use of military force to restrict the freedom of press, assembly and other rights to maintain order. Many observers question whether South Korea is currently in such a state.
The constitution also states that the president must oblige when the National Assembly demands the lifting of martial law with a majority vote.
Some experts say Yoon clearly violated the constitution in how he imposed martial law. While martial law allows “special measures” to restrict individual freedoms and the authority of agencies and courts, the constitution does not permit the functions of parliament to be restricted. But in following Yoon’s declaration on Tuesday, South Korea’s military proclaimed parliamentary activities were suspended and deployed troops to try to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly.
Park Chan-dae, the Democratic Party’s floor leader, called for Yoon to be immediately investigated on charges of rebellion over the way he deployed troops to the parliament. While the president mostly enjoys immunity from prosecution while in office, the protection does not extend to alleged rebellion or treason.
In Washington, the White House said the US was “seriously concerned” by the events in Seoul. A spokesperson for the National Security Council said President Joe Biden’s administration was not notified in advance of the martial law announcement and was in contact with the South Korean government.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said there was no effect on the more than 27,000 US service members based in South Korea.
In Seoul, the streets seemed busy like a normal day Wednesday.
Tourist Stephen Rowan, from Brisbane, Australia, who was touring Gyeongbokgung Palace, said he was not concerned at all.
“But then again, I don’t understand too much about the political status in Korea,” he said. “But I hear they are now calling for the current president’s resignation, so ... apparently there’s going to be a lot of demonstrations. ... I would have been concerned if martial law had stayed enforced.”
Yoon’s government and ruling party have been embroiled in an impasse with the Democratic Party over next year’s budget bill and a Democratic Party-led attempt to to impeach three top prosecutors.
During his televised announcement, Yoon also described the opposition as “shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our citizens.” He did not elaborate. North Korea had no immediate comments.
Natalia Slavney, research analyst at the Stimson Center’s 38 North website that focuses on Korean affairs, said Yoon’s imposition of martial law was “a serious backslide of democracy” that followed a “worrying trend of abuse” since he took office in 2022.
South Korea “has a robust history of political pluralism and is no stranger to mass protests and swift impeachments,” Slavney said, citing the example of former President Park Geun-hye, who was ousted from office and imprisoned for bribery and other crimes in 2017. She was later pardoned.


Mediterranean search-and-rescue NGOs refuse to cooperate with Libyan coast guard

Mediterranean search-and-rescue NGOs refuse to cooperate with Libyan coast guard
Updated 7 sec ago

Mediterranean search-and-rescue NGOs refuse to cooperate with Libyan coast guard

Mediterranean search-and-rescue NGOs refuse to cooperate with Libyan coast guard
  • Group of 13 organizations announce they will no longer share information over allegations of violent conduct
  • Migrants and asylum-seekers allegedly attacked, taken to camps notorious for slavery, torture and rape in North African country

LONDON: A group of NGOs operating rescue missions in the Mediterranean have ceased cooperating with the Libyan coast guard over the latter’s alleged violent treatment of asylum-seekers.

Thirteen groups running boats across the sea say it is a rejection of pressure from the EU to share information with Libya in a bid to stem the flow of migrants, particularly to Italy.

The EU funds and trains Libya’s coast guard, but the groups say that it has been involved in violently preventing people crossing to Europe, and has taken migrants to camps where rape, torture and slavery are common.

A 2021 UN report found asylum-seekers and refugees in Libya faced a “litany of abuses” in camps across the country that were “suggestive of crimes against humanity.”

Another report published last month by Berlin-based NGO Sea-Watch said that the Libyan coast guard had engaged in 54 acts of violence in the Mediterranean since 2016.

It highlighted ramming, shootings and assaults, while in August the Libyan coast guard was accused of opening fire on a ship belonging to the NGO SOS Mediterranee.

Ina Friebe, a member of the German activist group CompassCollective, said in a joint statement on behalf of the 13 NGOs: “We have never recognized these actors (Libya’s coast guard) as a legitimate rescue authority — they are part of a violent regime enabled by the EU.”

She added: “Now we are increasingly being pressured to communicate with exactly these actors. This must stop. Ending all operational communication with the so-called Libyan Rescue Coordination Center is both a legal and moral necessity — a clear line against European complicity in crimes against humanity.”

The group of 13 NGOs added that they know their stance could result in fines, detention and loss of their vessels.

“It is not only our right but our duty to treat armed militias as such in our operational communication — not as legitimate actors in search-and-rescue operations,” said Giulia Messmer of Sea-Watch.

Rescue organizations operating in the Mediterranean have saved more than 155,000 people over the past decade, but that has led to backlashes, including in Italy where the law was changed to prevent them operating freely out of ports.

The 13 NGOs said this week that they had launched the Justice Fleet initiative to track incidents involving the Libyan coast guard, as well as compile information on legal action taken by the groups.

“For 10 years, civil sea rescue has been providing first aid in the Mediterranean. For that, we have been blocked, criminalized, slandered,” the Justice Fleet website said.

“That’s why we are joining forces now, stronger than ever — to defend human rights and international maritime law together.”