• Hubi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    172
    ·
    9 days ago

    Yoon cited a motion by the country’s opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament, this week to impeach some of the country’s top prosecutors and its rejection of a government budget proposal.

    They declared martial law over a budget proposal??

        • Nighed@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          64
          ·
          9 days ago

          Don’t hold you breath…

          From BBC:

          The South Korean military says it will maintain martial law until it is lifted by President Yoon Suk Yeol, despite the nation’s parliament voting to block its enforcement, according to the country’s national broadcaster.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            9 days ago

            Yeah this is 100% a power grab. AFAIK there’s nothing going on right now in SK at a national level that could possibly justify the declaration of martial law countrywide.

          • perestroika@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            As far as I understand, the president’s decision might be void, since he was required to hold a session of the government before declaring martial law, but did not.

            I predict that the military will consult their lawyers and stop enforcing it really soon.

            I suspect the president either went insane or attempted some kind of a coup. His own party voting against his decision is a clear signal that it’s a solo performance. He has no political backing.

            • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              9 days ago

              I mean… if the military is behind the president (and it sounds like they just might be), this is just the beginning phase of a coup, wherein their legislature is taken out behind the shed.

              • perestroika@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                9 days ago

                Judging by the unanimous decision of the parliament, the majority of soldiers will have no interest in going forward with a coup. A minority could have interest, but would soon notice they’re a minority.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                9 days ago

                This is hours old, I think there might be a couple generals for sure, but the rest of the military is playing catch up. We’ll see how those chips fell tomorrow morning most likely.

          • Furball@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            9 days ago

            Not exactly, under the constitution if the parliament votes to suspend martial law the president must end it. A constitutional crisis is brewing

          • perestroika@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            Technically it might be, but all political power stems from the people agreeing to be governed. If they aren’t represented, they won’t agree to be governed for long.

            Basically, the parliament can’t afford to let itself be suspended. It’s needed because the president is going to get dismissed after this kind of behaviour.

      • Invertedouroboros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 days ago

        So, the following is a genuine question and not a snide remark.

        Does that matter? Is the military going to respect that? I’d heard prior to this that the military had forbade parliament from gathering. What’s to say they don’t just side with Yoon?Certainly wouldn’t be the first time in history that a nation’s military has dictated the corse of the nation’s civil future. I really hate asking questions like this but I’m just not familiar enough with the politics of South Korea to know if this a done and dusted thing or if the military is likely to go for a coup if Yoon pitches it.

    • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yes. This possibility has been discussed for months now. Yoon framed the cuts to his proposed budget as an “act of sympathy to the North” in his speech.

    • SoupBrick@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Maybe, keep in mind that reporting is going off the information they have. It might be deeper than that. Only time will tell.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    After Yoon’s statement the military said activities by parliament and political parties would be banned, and that media and publishers would be under the control of the martial law command.

    Yoon did not cite any specific threat from the nuclear-armed North, instead focusing on his domestic political opponents. It is the first time since 1980 that martial law has been declared in South Korea.

    That’s uh pretty explicit. Not quoted are two other key facts;

    • In South Korean law parliament can end Martial Law with a simple majority vote.
    • They did that vote immediately.
    • The Army “attempted” to take the parliament building but was rebuffed by staff members and fire extinguishers.

    Y’all, those soldiers were not on board with this idea. And this is all vitally important because South Korea was a dictatorship for most of the cold war. This is absolutely an attempt to reinstate that.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      How would that vote be held if the original Martial Law declaration banned Parliament from meeting? It seems like a gigantic loophole they need to close immediately before the president or a successor tries this again.

  • dance_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Yoon said he had no choice but to resort to such a measure in order to safeguard free and constitutional order, saying opposition parties have taken hostage of the parliamentary process to throw the country into a crisis.

    Not very familiar with the political situation in Seoul, but saying your political opponents are supporting North Korea sounds like a pretty serious accusation.

        • drolex@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          9 days ago

          I must say, this is a welcome change from the old antisemitism accusation. Now I have two cards in my hand.

          If you disagree, you’re a North Semitic antikorean. No wait.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      On the one hand calling your opponents commies has been around since we had commies to compare them to, but on the other Russian influence is on the rise and surprisingly effective.

    • Jack@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      We just don’t get it, he is removing freedom to protect freedom… It’s simple… /s

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Canada invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 when the national capital was occupied by a convoy of antivaxers who shut down the city for days. There was some debate as to whether it was necessary and there was an inquiry afterward. The main reason for invoking it was to allow the federal government to use law enforcement since the Ottawa municipal police mostly sat on its hands during the whole debacle.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        9 days ago

        Also in Canada, the War Measures Act was used during the FLQ Crisis in 1970. While some may disagree with using martial law, I don’t think many would say it was used in a corrupt, power-grabbing way.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        As a Canadian, I can assure you everyone on the right considered it a corrupt, powergrab. Whether or not you agree is of course up to you, but it’s not a clear sky case

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Of course everyone on the right didn’t like it, because “Fuck Trudeau” is the extent of their political understanding. It was overkill in hindsight, but in the moment, with the capital paralyzed and armed terrorists in Coutts, some benefit of the doubt must be given.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 days ago

          but they’ll say that no matter what won’t they? Like the only way to convince the right something is not a powergrab is to let them have their way.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Occasionally in response to things like floods and other disasters. Though then it’s usually local and short lived.

    • BoobaAwooga@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 days ago

      After reading the article it definitely sounds like power-grabbing, but I don’t know much about the Korean Democratic Party so I’m not sure

      • actually@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        9 days ago

        I read he is blocking the National Assembly building to avoid the martial law being lifted; both parties, including his, will vote to lift it should they get inside

    • AMoralNihilist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think the only time martial law can be seen as reasonable is in an outright state of war. And even then, only when it’s existential.

      It’s kind of inherently the antithesis of democratic values.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        Strictly speaking, the war with the North never formally ended, but that’s a whole problem in itself.

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    9 days ago

    Yoon cited a motion by the country’s opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament, this week to impeach some of the country’s top prosecutors and its rejection of a government budget proposal.

    Imagine declaring martial law, and these were the only concrete reasons you could come up with.

  • perestroika@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Update via Reuters: the president says he’ll abide by the parliament’s decision and revoke his declaration. Nobody started obeying it anyway - the military tried to do something because they had orders, but was not enthusiastic enough to achieve anything.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-president-yoon-declares-martial-law-2024-12-03/

    Some analysis via the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/03/declaration-of-martial-law-awakens-ghosts-south-koreans-thought-were-laid-to-rest

    Yoon’s declaration of martial law appears to have been a desperate gamble in the face of rock-bottom public popularity – with positive ratings barely over 10% – in the midst of a doctors’ strike and staunch political opposition, increasingly including his own People Power party, whose leader, Han Dong-hoon, said the declaration of martial law was a “wrong move”.

    Yoon may have thought that his nostalgia for authoritarianism would resonate with at least some of the South Korean political spectrum, but the unanimous vote in the national assembly to overturn his declaration, including by his own party, suggests he miscalculated.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Dude broke the first three laws of Couping. Control the lawmakers, control the core of the military, control the media. Win these and you control the narrative.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      So it was just a little try to get his country back to a dictatorship (with him at the top) because he was too unpopular.

      There really should be laws that one must be psychically healthy to be parliament or president.

  • Jack@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 days ago

    Who had south Korea becoming a fascist state?

    Do I hear bingo from the back?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’ll be honest I had South Korean oligarch class does ridiculous cult shit and causes headlines. Does that count?

    • RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 days ago

      Who had south Korea becoming a fascist state?

      I don’t read or speak Korean but maybe the president ran on making South Korea Great Fascist Again? South Korea only democratized in 1987.

    • Invertedouroboros@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      I can’t remember when I came to the realization, but for years now I thought that if (and I would love to hold on to the naive hope that it is an “if”) WW3 breaks out then the battle lines would be drawn between the forces of autocracy and democracy. Those would be our sides.

      Now, I’m not even sure democracy is gonna make it out the gate… America’s elected a dictator who’s aligned with Russia who is itself a major factor of this unholy autocratic alliance with China, North Korea, and Iran… Now this?

      There were no “good guys” in world war 1. It was the result of squabbleing European powers not realizing the destructive potential modern military technology had and how much that changed the game. It needed to happen in the sense that countries couldn’t continue to act the way they had prior to the great war, but that doesn’t mean anyone was in the right.

      It’s hard to imagine “good guys” in world war 3 either. Increasingly, it kinda just seems like it’s a choice between “what shit flavor of authoritarianism do you hate less?”. Assuming that question even matters considered all the nuclear weapons that could fly in a third world war.

      I dunno man, shit’s just looking pretty fucking bleak.

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      We are still mostly in the stage where it might be diplomatically avoided, but if it does start, yes, this will have been a small part of the start of it. Like the last couple of decades to varying degrees at various points. It’s still potentially avoidable, but honestly, in some places, it feels like it has already been going for a long time. Currently, they don’t count as part of a world war, but if a world war breaks out, they will then retroactively count as part of it. If everything settles down before getting to that point, then these will have been individual events that were largely connected to a similar crisis.

      It’s not like anyone knew at the time what day world war 1 and 2 started on the days we now consider them to have officially started. For world war 1, there was really no precedent. So they certainly would have had no idea on the day we consider it to have started. Used to take months to even find out 2 other countries were at war, let alone the time it took to them react to that information and muster up support or further opposition. World wars only really became possible once world-wide near instantaneous communication was available. I’m not sure how long it even took to coin the phrase “world war”, but they figured that would be the only time something like that would ever happen, considering not only the cost/rammifications, but how widespread word of how bad it was could be with such quick communication.

      No one would soon forget the various costs… but then we had a source of motivation that outgrew those costs. So world war 2. At least we knew what to call it this time. People were probably a bit less fuzzy on the day it officially started, but a lot of that would have to do with what country they lived in. And it still eventually mostly had to be hammered out by historians to really figure out what all should be considered part of it.

      So, it’s still a bit schroedinger’s WW3, all these events are in the box waiting to see what they will eventually be called once it’s time to examine the contents of the box.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Given Trump’s tendencies, I’m not sure I want us jumping in right away. He’d probably pick the worse side.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 days ago

          He’d probably pick the worse side.

          No doubt about it. He obviously love Putin and Kim, and for all of his “Chayna” bullshit, he loves Xi too.

          He takes the side of oppressive regimes 10/10 times. Because he loves power and dominating people who are superior to him in every way.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          Oh the break up of America is scheduled for any WW3 under Trump. He absolutely could not keep this country together in such extremes.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 days ago

    Not a good look, and I have a hard time seeing the people of South Korea accept this and just rolling over. Ugh.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      But the military seems to be going along with it, blocking out legislators (even from Yoon’s own party).

      And, uh, the precedent for that isn’t good, even if a majority dont support it.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’m sure this will just be a misunderstanding that will be cleared up in no time. Let me know when that happens.

    … I’ll be in my bunker.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        It’s honestly insane that these sorts of technicalities are even possible to block the vote. “I called dictatorshipsies and you weren’t in the parliament building when you clearly, overwhelmingly said ‘no’, so I guess no takesies backsies.” There probably ought to be some sort of provision in Korean law going forward that if it isn’t possible to enter the parliament building, they can hold the vote elsewhere.

        Edit: they have convened elsewhere.

        Edit 2: unanimous vote to end martial law, 190–0.

        • VonReposti@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          9 days ago

          Worth noting is that the unanimous vote includes members of the president’s party (as far as I can see from skimming headlines. They’re dropping fast…)

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 days ago

        Yonhap news agency cited the military as saying activities by parliament and political parties would be banned, and that media and publishers would be under the control of the martial law command.

        i see now, article was updated

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Yoon cited a motion by the country’s opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament

      hol up, just how this happens

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        The president and the government seems to have a longer mandate than the individual representatives.

        They lost the last election, hard, so this is a lame duck government.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      He’s president, not prime minister. Removing him would require an impeachment, which usually has a higher barrier then a no confidence vote, though I’m not familiar with Korean government.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      On the other hand, that may be why the Army let staff members with fire extinguishers keep them out of Parliament. It’s a lot harder to get consent for a coup from the military if the rank and file closely resemble the people instead of a separate class.

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        The whole point of the draft is to turn people into soldier and a separate class.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Not necessarily. By making the Army everyone, you also make the Army no one. As in, there is no separate class. Contrast this with the US where soldiers are held in high regard, and most volunteers come from military families and rural destitute people. Both of which are disconnected from normal society for their own reasons. Then they live in an insular community for at least 4 years, longer if they stay in. And they’re welcome to stay for at least a decade without becoming an NCO.

          A 2 year conscription by comparison means you have a constantly rotating force that reflects society. It’s harder to send to war because it could be anyone’s kids, and it’s harder to use against the people because that requires them to fight against their friends. And if the rotating force idea is kept, then it also requires tacit knowledge that what you do today sets the standard for what’s done against you tomorrow.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Different topic a little, but I think a compulsory year or two of service is good for a society.

      That said, nations that do it tend to always make it military, when at minimum, there should be a societal service/peace core option, and preferably that should be the common option taken. (help build homeless housing, soup kitchens, etc)

      Here in the US, we aren’t a society. We have a sociopathic culture we try to reframe as being “ruggedly individual” aka free to die in the gutter alone. Empathy is a bad word here and our elite’s children go to different schools than our people. National compulsory service might buy some social buy in.

      But we’d rather work against one another in a race to the bottom than lift each other up as a people.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    Just watched the chilling footage of Hussein’s power grab the other day and this looks oddly familiar.