South Korean President Yoon is urged to resign or face impeachment over martial law
Seoul (AP/PTI): South Korea's main opposition party on Wednesday urged President Yoon Suk Yeol to resign immediately or face impeachment, hours after Yoon ended short-lived martial law that prompted troops to encircle parliament before lawmakers voted to lift it.
Yoon didn't make any immediate public response to the opposition's demand. But his office said senior presidential advisers and secretaries for Yoon offered to resign collectively and the president also put off his official Wednesday morning schedule.
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 am 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.
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.
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 armoured 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 Blackhawk 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. Some reportedly climbed over walls, 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 ground 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.”
Ruling People Power Party Han Dong-hun demanded that Yoon explain his decision and fire Defence 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.
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. 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 has 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.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
India votes in favour of UNGA resolution on Palestine calling for end to Israeli occupation
United Nations, Dec 4: India voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution that called for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and reiterated the call for achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in West Asia.
The draft resolution ‘Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine’ tabled by Senegal was overwhelmingly adopted in the 193-member General Assembly on Tuesday.
India was among the 157 nations that voted in favour, while eight Member States - Argentina, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and the United States voted against it.
Cameroon, Czechia, Ecuador, Georgia, Paraguay, Ukraine and Uruguay abstained.
The resolution, adopted as orally revised, reiterated its call for the “achievement, without delay, of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East (West Asia)” on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967, including of East Jerusalem.
The resolution called for the “withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem” and for the realisation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State.
Through the resolution, the General Assembly reaffirmed its unwavering support, in accordance with international law, for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognised borders, based on the pre-1967 borders.
It also demanded that Israel, “the occupying Power, comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including as reflected in the advisory opinion of the International Court of 19 July 2024, including to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as rapidly as possible, to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and to put an end to its unlawful acts, including by repealing all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation.”
It rejected any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza.
The resolution further stressed that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and “reaffirms the vision of the two-state solution, with the Gaza Strip as part of the Palestinian State.”
The resolution further stressed the need for an immediate and complete cessation of all acts of violence, including military attacks, destruction and acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and incitement.
India also voted in favour of a resolution in the General Assembly that demanded that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of June 1967 in the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.
The resolution was adopted with 97 votes in favour, 64 abstentions and eight votes against, including by Australia, Canada, Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The resolution expressed deep concern that Israel has not withdrawn from the Syrian Golan, which has been under occupation since 1967, contrary to the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
It stressed the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967.
It declared that the Israeli decision of December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is “null and void” and has no validity whatsoever and called upon Israel to rescind it.
