What's happening in South Korea?
I don't follow the politics closely, but this story made headlines here in Oz this morning. President declares Martial Law due to alleged North Korean infiltration, huge demonstrations ensue, Parliament forces him to cancel the declaration (NY Times Gift Link.). Apparently prompted by an impasse or deadlock in Parliament between Yoon's government and the Opposition.
Considering the baleful influence of North Korea in world affairs, I can imagine the last thing the Western democracies want is political upheaval in the South.
@ssu - what's your take?
Considering the baleful influence of North Korea in world affairs, I can imagine the last thing the Western democracies want is political upheaval in the South.
@ssu - what's your take?
Comments (32)
Because this doesn't look like the actual tit-for-tat conflict that the Koreas sometimes have. Again the real issue here is how well South Korean democracy survives. A coup or a self-coup can squash an otherwise functioning democracy.
It struck me that if the forthcoming US president is not so interested in maintaining foreign power balances around the world, then it seems likely that other stake holders will begin to test (e.g. provoke) to see whether they have a chance to advance their positions, or take over. Not sure if this has anything to do with the the current event in South Korea.
Anyway - their analysis is that it definitely is a political crisis, and it's causing severe anxiety in the Western alliance, due to the volatility of the region and the nefarious Mr Kim. On the other hand, up until the 1980's, S. Korea had a long history of periods of marshall law and military government, so it's not totally unprecedented. The feeling today seems to be that Yoon severely overplayed his hand, and the opposition parties stood firm and were supported by the electorate, and Yoon will likely loose power as a consequence. But considering all the other hair-trigger situations going on the in the world right now, it's a worrying development.
It sounds like the president had a Donald Trump moment. Incidentally, S. Korea has "fans" all over the world due to the popularity of K-pop, K-dramas, and webtoons. It's a thing, where Americans end up knowing some basic Korean phrases, which leads to knowledge about their history and culture. I'm curious about how that kind of cultural alliance will impact events.
My reading is, Soon had a very small majority in Parliament, and every move he tried was being blocked by the Opposition, so he basically tried to ride a tank over them, and failed.
This is how it seems to have gone. An attempt of a self-coup, when everything else has not worked...
So the positive side here might be the democratic system in South Korea prevailed. At least for now.
It seems to have.
I can already tell you the answer to that: nope.
A shame for the US, but democracy may thrive elsewhere.
Trump is just there to avoid prison. It's his VP who's worth watching. He's younger, smarter, and opposed to Enlightenment values. For real.
More like Moe from the Three Stooges.
I take the voters seriously. This is no longer a country where belief in democracy prevails.
At least South Koreans take democracy seriously:
(btw, not just a women as the caption says, Ahn Gwi-ryeong, the spokesperson for the main opposition party in South Korea)
I :heart: S. Korea
alternatively, the voters don't really understand what is at stake. There is after all unprecedented amounts of misinformation and commercially-sponsored state propaganda, to all intents and purposes. Turns out you can fool most of the people, most of the time.
Using the metaphorical nose, this Korean scenario stinks of Guoanbu influence.
Also, very timely...Taiwan, imminent and probable US change of/ disinterest and naivety in Far Eastern Foreign Policy, Syrian escalation, Gaza, Ukraine. Good for dominoes to tumble Xi's way.
Also, apologizes for the misspelling of your avatar in the s/box.
nod and a wink
Any concrete indications of that?
As far as I've been able to tell this president and his party have been notoriously hawkish on North-Korea, which would not seem logical.
It's kind of telling that we globally are tumbling down into two sides of some polarized positions. Is there a logical conclusion at the end of this? We either as humanity begin to understand this self-radicalization and abandon the binary conflict, or we further tumbles down and face a world war not between nations, but between two fundamentally constructed simulacras of meaning. If that were to happen, it would be as pointless as the first world war, but the consequence might lead to the eradication of stupid politics, a new system of politics which respect democracy, but abandon emotionally driven politics that give birth to demagogues.
I think there are lessons the world will learn in this century, that will teach everyone about the dangers of giving too much power to individuals and that politics needs a collective of opposing leaders as the composition of power. We already see how proper parliaments with a collective of many different voices, maybe not act fast, but act balanced and better for the entire people as well as the world.
The only nations of the world who pose actual threats to humanity are the ones where the concentration of power is just a small group or a single ruler.
This type of ideal of a single ruler needs to be eradicated, by revolutionary force, if necessary. It is an echo of barbaric times in history that masked itself as civilized. Modern politics need to rid themselves of individuals and install a neutral system of operation that channel the people's will and which protects against any attempt to control it by a single few. Any attempt at disrupting such a system has to have a rationally reasoned ground that everyone agrees upon, not just the majority.
I think there's too little debate and discussions on how to evolve politics. Everyone has just given up on doing so and keeps playing this game of "I hope democracy survives". :shade:
If they're doing their job correctly, an in depth post facto examination may reveal a few loose and tenuous threads with which to trace some of the complex tapestry that suggests Guoanbu fingerprints.
Think Xi not Kim.
Think who advised Yoon to declare... ? And who advised that advisor to give that particular advice at this particular time? Who convinced the fall guy general to resign? Why was the decision reversed only 6hrs later. And wasn't the martial law to take affect at midnight without prior warning? Strange?
And if you want an extra dimension, who/what is poised and stands to benefit in the near, medium and long term with instability in the Taiwan, Japan and SK region. NK maybe able to handle the crumbs that their big mate next door will throw them once SK is fully puppetized. NK is the stand up/face of enemy while the CCP controlled by Xi runs the real operation, the purpose of which is to have the real power in the region, not the US, not SK, not Japan and certainly not the missing part of the PRC - Taiwan.
And remember,at the moment, PRC = CCP = Xi.
Well, maybe the above is all BS /conspiracy as certain aforementioned names would have as the "truth" accepted.
Isn't it well known that Xi has no interest in expanding his country's foreign influence except by commercial trade? Just like all good nations!
Oh, and Putin only wants Ukraine to promise not to join NATO and he'll withdraw and stop the war immediately. That is in Russia's interest after all!
Sounds/reads like the Grimm's Brothers writings, but is presented as "The Truth".
Even in the blinding light of truth revealed, questions should continue to be asked. Who should have said that? Diogenes after too many free drinks, perhaps?
Raised eyebrow of questioning irony
A brave call for change, limited though! And based on an assumption that there is a level playing field called democracy that only has one form/ universal understanding.
Why democracy?
And in times of immediate crisis, multi party democracies can not always act swiftly i.e. stop playing politics and start producing good governance.
Many limits to that one form of governing!
But why should the perfect be the enemy of the good? This seems to be, currently, a much touted expression.
slightly slit eyed querying smile
Impossible to in length write out all parameters of a system that governs against what I described in here.
Quoting kazan
Democracy when functioning as intended in representing the people and without corruption, have always functioned better for the sake of humanity than any other form of system. The problem is that many nations are too naive or ill-built to protect it from corruption or manipulation of this system. The necessary steps to eliminate the rise of demagogues and manipulation is by the people confused to be fascist suppression and this confusion gets taken advantage of by the demagogues in order to rise in power until they can install real suppression in order to seize authoritarian power.
Democracy only shows its broken side when the protection of it that I speak off is non-existent.
Quoting kazan
It all depends on what constitutional rulings that are in place.
As I see it, there's too much focus on philosophical debates about democracy vs something and not enough about what constitutes a good democracy and how the world can evolve democracy itself past the problems it always seem to face.
No dispute with your assertion that democracies have to be worked at/ protected actively by their citizens to survive. And this is getting more complicated as time goes on. And by the willingness and passion for the retention of democracy in different regions of humanity.
Interesting, though, that in the - being generous - 2,500 years since the concept of democracy was given its name, it may be argued, that not a lot of the world's population has lived under a functioning governance that most of us would recognize and agree was a democracy.??
.
Not being anti-democracy. Just concerned about the basis of your choice of such a system having world wide application even, with its various historical permutations and combinations, in this "educated and connected" era.
Agree without reservation, it is considered an excellent, possibly the best system of governance by most of those people who have had ( possibly generational ) exposure/ born into democratic nations of the north western half hemisphere ( and speckled throughout the rest of the world) and have formed this consideration from within that limited understanding/experience of what good governance should look like/ should be.
But in worldwide geopolitical terms, democracy only warms the interest of few other interested peoples and their current forms of not democratic governance.
Oh, and why should a democracy need a constitution if it is so apparently the "best" ( to strive for) and good for peoples' governance? Or is it not a democracy if it has no constitution?
(Still trying to get an understanding of your style/understanding of what is a democracy's fundamental structure as compared to existing democracies that you might not agree should be called democracies, perhaps many of the republics in the world that claim democratic status at the United Nations Assembly.) Not asking for a comprehensive definition as that may lead off into nit or cherry picking.
Maybe the origin of this comment and continuing interest lies in the (maybe too naive and too limited) belief/ thinking/questioning based on personal and some historical observations that all forms of governance, once established, strive for the consolidation and perpetuation of the status quo within themselves and crave the extra powers possible to gain from expanding their influence into the rest ( or other parts) of the world ( including, for some, space).
This seems to give rise to at least a dichotomy or schism/s in perceived self reassurance of worth, a backbone breaker of any system of governance, And may lead to a different governance style i.e, change. Would you agree?
a skeptical worry line creased forehead
As way of an inadequate excuse, even in international affairs, divergent points of view trace back to differences in philosophic stands....often.
apologetic smile