• login
  • Donate
  • 0 items
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Editor’s Note
  • MN News
  • National News
  • Global News
  • Events
  • Merch
  • Print Edition Archive

Korean Quarterly

Giving Voice to the Korean American Community

  • Features
  • Politics
  • Opinion
  • Books
  • Theater
  • Film & Dramas
  • Food & Drink
  • Music
  • Creative
  • Webtoons

Opinion

To stop coups in South Korea, expand democracy

May 30, 2025 by Dae-Han Song

If Yoon’s impeachment opened extraordinary spaces of participation, now they must become integrated into the ordinary workings of democracy | By Dae-Han Song (Spring 2025)

Protest outside the National Assembly on December 7, the day of the impeachment vote. Photo: International Strategy Center (@goiscorg)

On April 4, 122 days after martial law was declared in South Korea, the constitutional court upheld the National Assembly’s impeachment motion and dismissed the former president Suk Yeol Yoon.

While toppling the president involved a Herculean effort, the greater challenge will be changing social conditions to prevent the rise of another Yoon. After all, eight years ago, then-President Geun-hye Park was also impeached. The failure of President Jae-in Moon and the Democratic Party to fulfill the mandate for social change and reform demanded by the candlelight uprising led to widespread disappointment and discontent, ultimately paving the path for Yoon’s election.

With the clear frontrunner Jae-myung Lee of the Democratic Party declaring himself a “center conservative,” the election has become a contest between conservatives. And while a Lee victory might be necessary to root out those that directly supported and defended Yoon’s self-coup (when he tried to overcome his political impasse with the National Assembly by declaring martial law), it also requires laying the foundations to break the vice grip on power held by the liberal and conservative parties that brought Korean society to this point. To do so, the people need the power to recall elected officials and directly propose their own laws.

Déjà vu

Eight years ago, riding high on the exuberance of the candlelight uprising (which led to the ouster of President Geun-hye Park),  the Democratic Party’s Jae-in Moon was given a mandate for reform. With two years left in his term, his party was even handed a supermajority (180 out of 300 seats) in the following National Assembly. Yet, despite his campaign promises, Moon failed to make Korean society more equal (i.e., he did not substantially increase the minimum wage, control housing prices), safer (i.e., he did not mount a full investigation of the Sewol Ferry Tragedy to prevent its recurrence, or follow through with criminal accountability for industrial accidents), and free from discrimination (i.e., he did not advance the comprehensive anti-discrimination bill).

Now, with the Democratic Party’s Jae-myung Lee the clear frontrunner in opinion polls, the Democratic Party is likely to win the presidency again. If the conservative People Power Party proudly carries the legacy of dictatorship, the liberal Democratic Party, whose ranks swelled with democratization activists from the 1980s, has long been captured by the economic elite. If Lee wins, he would be in a strong position to implement reforms because the Democratic Party will maintain its supermajority in the National Assembly (achieved in 2020 and 2024) for at least the first three years of the next presidency.

Yet, looking at Lee’s track record as the Democratic Party leader since 2022 and his campaign rhetoric, it’s unclear whether his administration would offer policy solutions to ordinary people’s most pressing problems: Inflation, growing inequality, housing prices, and discrimination. After all, during Lee’s leadership, the Democratic Party used its supermajority mostly to play the blame game with the Yoon administration. And, rather than addressing inequality by redistributing wealth through taxation, it abolished the financial investment tax and is now talking about increasing the portion of inheritance exempt from taxation.

Unsurprisingly, before Yoon’s self-coup, the Democratic Party was nearly as unpopular as the People Power Party. Even now, a vote for Lee has simply become a vote for the lesser evil. And while choosing the lesser evil is necessary to root out the elements of Yoon’s self-coup, breaking out of this impeachment-elections-impeachment cycle requires structural changes.

Break the cycle

Today, all parties agree on amending the 1987 constitution, which established the current formal democracy. Even the disgraced conservative People Power Party is calling for constitutional amendments to shorten the next presidential term, given their likely defeat. The Democratic Party is proposing to amend the constitution to redistribute power from the executive to the legislative branch. Yet, neither is addressing the limitations of the 1987 constitution: a formal democracy that limits democratic participation to voting during elections.

Impeaching President Yoon created an extraordinary opening for ordinary people (among them, young women and members of the LGBTQ+ community) to rise up as democratic actors. Without expanding participation, formal democracy’s response to their efforts, growth, and exuberance amounts to: “Thank you for defending democracy. Please make sure to vote.” Korea’s democracy must accommodate the democratic space for these emerging actors to shape their lives and future beyond choosing between two parties.

That’s why a progressive current is forming around the need to expand participatory democracy. More specifically, the People Power Direct Action (established to organize ordinary people to impeach Yoon and expand direct democracy) is proposing to root out the self-coup elements. It wants to do this by empowering people with the right to recall elected officials and propose their own laws. With such expanded powers, voters could remove leaders who have lost their democratic mandate.

Before declaring martial law, Yoon’s actions and policies had already turned him into a lame duck president with approval rating at around 20 percent.  Yet, without the recall referendum, voters could do nothing but wait for him to complete the second half of his term. Furthermore, even after Yoon carried out martial law and was impeached by the National Assembly, the public had to anxiously wait for the Constitutional Court to uphold the impeachment.

Secondly, the power to propose laws would break the vice grip held by elite interests. If the conservative party proudly carries the legacy of dictatorship, the liberal party, whose ranks swelled with democratization activists from the 1980s, has long been captured by the elite. After all, in one of the issues most important to young people – housing – (conservative and liberal) National Assembly members are aligned with the elite.

The average real estate assets for National Assembly members stand at KRW 1.9 billion (about $1.3 million), nearly five times the national average. Among the top ten wealthiest, four are from the Democratic Party; the other six, from the People Power Party. In fact, the largest real estate assets – KRW 41 billion (roughly $30 million) – are held by a Democratic Party assembly member. Most importantly, 54.7 percent of the members of the three permanent committees connected to real estate have significant land holdings themselves. If the National Assembly fails to propose bills that control housing prices, it’s because it hurts their interests.

The same argument applies to controlling financial speculation and stock ownership. And if this is neither shocking nor unique to South Korea, then democracy requires that common people be given the power to propose laws that represent their interests.

Lessons across time and place have shown us that the way to the greatest evils are the accumulated disappointments and anger from settling for the lesser evil. To break free, people need to be able to rise as democratic actors. If Yoon’s impeachment opened extraordinary spaces of participation, now they must become integrated into the ordinary workings of democracy. The ability to recall elected officials and propose laws would be a start.

This article is reprinted from Globetrotter with permission.

Filed Under: front_page_below_fold, Opinion, Politics Tagged With: Candle Light Vigil, Dae-Han Song, International Strategy Center, Korea Policy Institute, Korean democracy, Lee Jae-myung, Moon Jae-in, No Cold War collective, Park Guen-hye, People Power Party, South Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol

Opinion

May 8, 2025 by raistlin

How the Korean people shut down an assault against their democracy | By Jinwoo Park (Winter 2025)

What happened in South Korea this past December was one of the most reckless political moves in modern history. 

On December 3, President Seok-yul Yoon declared martial law, closed the National Assembly, and sent the military to enforce his order.  This marks the first martial law in the history of the Sixth Republic (i.e., since the current democratic government was established in 1988). Similarly, there has been no declaration of martial law since 1981, when military dictator Doo-hwan Chun took power after a coup d’etat. 

A lot has happened since then, and the political drama can seem impossible to untangle. The following is my attempt to shed some light and bring meaning to South Korea’s martial law crisis of December 2024.  

Why Yoon called for martial law

In his declaration of martial law, Yoon stated that his justification was rooted in his frustration with the opposition-controlled National Assembly. He accused the Assembly of paralyzing his administration by impeaching government officials — most recently his defense minister — and blocking budgets, especially for the military and police. Yoon claimed that some members of the Assembly were “anti-government, pro-North Korean elements” working to destroy the country from within. 

This rhetoric isn’t new — it’s a classic conservative strategy in South Korea to tie any opposition movements to North Korean and/or communist influences, especially if any opposition faction is even a millimeter left of center.

The opposition, the Democratic Party of Korea, has held a majority in the Assembly since 2020, and despite Yoon’s 2022 presidential victory, his People Power Party has not been able to gain control.  After the 2024 parliamentary elections, the opposition retained the majority with 170 seats out of 300. 

It is not a big stretch to infer that Yoon called for martial law as a disruption because he didn’t like what the elected opposition was doing with its majority in the National Assembly. 

Soldiers go into the National Assembly building on December 3.

Opening moves by the military

Yoon’s martial law declaration came late at night — 10:28 p.m. — likely because he wanted a chance for the changeover to martial law to happen under the radar. Further corroboration for this rationale is the fact that the government failed to send out text alerts, something that usually happens when nationwide incidents are occurring. Within an hour of the declaration, the military, specifically the 707th Special Forces, were deployed to the National Assembly by helicopter.  

So, why would the president send the military to guard the National Assembly? Well under Article 77, Section 5 of the Constitution, if a majority of the National Assembly vote to end martial law, the president is required to accept. This law was built in as a check of presidential power, to prevent the abuse of martial law whenever the president decided he did not like the National Assembly. It essentially transfers the ultimate power to declare martial law over to the Assembly. 

This was what Yoon was trying to prevent from happening. He wanted to block members of the National Assembly from gathering at the building and voting against the declaration. The clock was now ticking for the assembly members to stop Yoon. 

Citizens fight back

At the time of the declaration of martial law, staff and some Assembly members were inside the National Assembly building. That group sprang into action, barricading themselves inside with anything they could find including desks, chairs, and other heavy objects.  Once the Special Forces soldiers started to make their way into the building, they formed human walls and used fire extinguishers to repel the troops. 

While that was happening inside, outside, word was spreading quickly despite the late hour, and hundreds, and eventually thousands of ordinary citizens rushed to the National Assembly building to block the soldiers from sealing the building off. 

In this chaos, National Assembly members were trying to get in any way they could in order to vote to repeal martial law. There is some now-famous footage of opposition leader Jae-myoung Lee jumping over the fence to get in. And, in fact, that is how many of the Assembly members got through. Ordinary citizens helped the members clearing the way and making sure they could get over the fence and onto the grounds. 

I also want to give credit to how hesitant the soldiers were, and how they just didn’t follow through with their orders to seal off the building with military force.  For instance, not a single shot was fired, even when one assemblywoman, Gwi-ryung Ahn, grabbed a soldier’s gun by the barrel and pulled on it.  The troops knew that the National Assembly members were trying to get over the fence, yet they made no attempt to stop them.  There were many reported instances when the soldiers made physical contact with civilians, but then backed off, even though their mission was to stop the National Assembly members from getting through.  

In fact, these troops certainly could have forced their way in to stop the vote. Later, it was revealed that preventing the members from assembling was part of their orders for that night. We can only conclude that evidently, in the face of all the popular support, the soldiers did not have the heart to stop the vote through military violence. Outside the building, protesters asked the soldiers not to escalate the situation, echoing past moments in Korean history, like the June Democratic Struggle of 1987, when citizens appealed directly to riot police and soldiers to stand down. 

So, thanks to the citizens, and thanks to some quiet quitting by the soldiers, 190 Assembly members — well above the majority needed — convened that night and voted to revoke martial law. Yoon was required to comply, and he announced the end of martial law shortly thereafter.

National Election Commission raid

Now this is where I want to interject another possibility — what if the whole confusing event of December 3 and 4 was just a ruse for another objective? That may sound crazy. After all, martial law is a hell of a distractor for Yoon to throw. And for what?  

However, within two minutes of the martial law announcement, an advance party of soldiers went to the National Election Commission, seized the phones of all staff there at the time, and took over the premises. 

Think about that. It took an hour for the army to go to the National Assembly. The National Election Commission got raided two minutes after the declaration, meaning the troops were quite literally waiting outside the building until martial law was announced. 

Then, additional soldiers and government agents began to arrive. Eventually, around 300 staff and officials were on site, including IT personnel from the Defense Counterintelligence Command. This was more people than the number of troops they sent to the National Assembly. 

The National Election Commission had been Yoon’s obsession for awhile. He believed there had been election fraud during the 2020 general election, when conservatives suffered a historic defeat. It resulted in the lowest number of seats won by a major conservative party in 60 years, while the voter turnout, at 66.2 percent, was the highest in the history of Korea’s general elections. This happened in 2020, despite the heavy lockdown of the pandemic.  

After this election catastrophe for conservatives, right-wing YouTubers and other media repeated and fueled some baseless claims of election fraud. The National Election Commission had very reasonable explanations for every complaint; there was no evidence to support most accusations. It is now commonly understood that these accusations were attributable only to Youtubers and conservative media sources trying to farm views and get money from angry conservatives who just couldn’t accept the new reality. 

Since Yoon had difficulty with an opposition majority National Assembly, he was prone to thinking these election fraud allegations were credible. Thus, he targeted the Election Commission. 

This rationale was corroborated by the now ex-defense minister, Yong-hyun Kim, who stated that they went to the Election Commission to investigate election fraud. 

So, let that sink in. 

President Yoon called for martial law to find evidence for election fraud accusations that were started by right wing Youtubers.

And of course, after all that trouble, they found no evidence of election fraud. 

The moment that the impeachment bill passed the National Assembly on December 14.

The long road to impeachment

The next morning, six political parties with representation in the National Assembly, including the official opposition party, jointly filed a motion to impeach President Yoon, citing his martial law declaration as a violation of democracy and an act of rebellion, among a list of other crimes. 

Public sentiment polls have been overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment, with over 70 percent supporting it. 

In order for the impeachment vote to pass, the Assembly needs a two-thirds majority — 200 votes. The People Power Party (Yoon’s party), holds 108 seats. At least eight members of Yoon’s party would have to defect for the vote to pass. Immediately after December 3, the PPP stated that while they disagree with the martial law declaration, they would not support impeachment — that they wouldn’t defect. 

But instead of voting on the impeachment, the PPP boycotted the vote on December 7. The National Assembly held two critical votes on the day of the impeachment vote: The first concerned a special investigation into First Lady Keon-hee Kim, and the second was on impeachment of President Yoon. The investigation vote failed as the PPP overwhelmingly voted against it. Then, its members started walking out before the start of the impeachment vote. Their exit left the chamber without the required quorum of 200 members to proceed with the vote.

In the wake of this action, the public backlash intensified, with massive protests across the country demanding the removal of both Yoon and the PPP. Unfazed by the PPP’s brazenness, the opposition alliance tried again. On December 11, a second impeachment bill was introduced, with the vote scheduled for December 14. As a result of rising criticism from not just the Democratic opposition, but the millions who gathered outside the National Assembly in continuous protest, a dozen PPP members defected from their party, and the second impeachment vote was passed. 

In accordance with the impeachment, President Yoon was suspended from his duties. 

A victory for the Korean people 

Much has happened since the December 14 vote, with an unending stream of political drama constantly unfolding. Here’s just a brief summary of the most important events to give an idea of how dizzying the drama has been. 

  • December 27:  Acting President Duck-soo Han was impeached by the National Assembly for delaying the appointment of Constitutional Court judges. Seven or more judges must be chosen to decide on Yoon’s impeachment trial, and there were only six judges appointed with three seats empty. 
  • December 31: Second Acting President Sang-mok Choi appointed two Constitutional Court judges but withheld a third nominee, enabling Yoon’s impeachment trial to proceed.
  • January 3: The Corruption Investigation Office attempted to arrest Yoon for insurrection and abuse of power, resulting in an hours-long standoff at his residence with resistance from the Presidential Security Service. The arrest attempt ultimately failed. 
  • January 15: The second arrest operation was carried out successfully, with more than a thousand police officers on site, leading to Yoon’s detention, making him the first sitting South Korean president to be arrested and jailed.
  • January 18: Yoon’s detention sparked violent protests at the Seoul Western District Court. Pro-Yoon demonstrators stormed the courthouse, clashed with police, and caused significant property damage, leading to multiple injuries and arrest.
  • January 26: Yoon is successfully indicted for insurrection.

The above list does not include all the smaller back and forths between those in favor of the impeachment of Yoon and those against, as well as the crazy and off-the-rails words from Yoon himself, who apparently sees no wrongdoing at any of his recent actions or statements. But despite the mess, the Korean people and its leaders have stayed on track on the important matter of bringing Yoon to justice.  

Yoon had some kind of plan, whether it was to seize power in a military coup, or to find evidence for election fraud. But he apparently forgot that Korea is a nation that has endured and overcome decades of authoritarian rule under military dictatorships, and that its people have won their political freedom back many times through continuous civil movements. Through many struggles, and by learning from past dictatorships, Koreans built a democracy that is not only legally robust but also deeply ingrained in the hearts of its citizens.

When Yoon tried to use the military to seize control, it wasn’t just lawmakers who defended against it — it was ordinary people. Although it was late at night when the public was informed of the martial law order, thousands immediately rushed to the National Assembly to protect their democracy. People were even getting into taxis from regions and cities outside of Seoul to drive in and be there, regardless of the cost. 

It is notable that even the soldiers hesitated, and some apologized as they withdrew from the demonstrators, reflecting how deeply the principles of democracy resonate even within those who were acting under the orders of the wannabe dictator. 

South Koreans have shown time and again that they won’t tolerate this kind of power grab.  From the June Democratic Struggle of 1987, which ended decades of military rule, to the peaceful candlelight protests of 2016, which impeached President Geun-hye Park, Koreans have repeatedly risen against anti-democratic forces. The recent martial law episode was a continuation of that spirit — a nation that refuses to let anyone dismantle what they’ve fought so hard to build.

Yoon’s action on December 3 is not just a story of a failed coup by a megalomaniac. Instead, it’s a story of a vibrant democracy that thrives because of the people who are ready to stand up for it. For South Koreans, democracy isn’t just a system of government — it’s a way of life they will always defend. 

Protestors assemble with signs at one of numerous protests following the December 3 martial law declaration. The demonstrator on left (as part of a sign-holding team) has the second syllable of the word (tan-hek) for “impeach.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Politics

May 8, 2025 by raistlin

South Korean activists are showing the world how to save democracy | By John Feffer (Winter 2025)

Protests calling for impeachment of President Suk-yeol Yoon in front of the parliament.

Democracy isn’t doing so well around the world. One poignant sign of democracy’s decline is that it’s cherished most fervently in places where it effectively doesn’t exist — in Venezuela, for example, among voters protesting a stolen election.

In existing democracies, meanwhile, voters don’t hold their defining political institutions in high regard. In the U.S., less than 20 percent of Americans think Congress is doing a good job. In the European Union, only one-third of citizens on average trust their national governments and only one-fifth trust their political parties.

Familiarity breeds contempt, which explains why voters have elected anti-democratic candidates to high office in country after country. Viktor Orban has won four straight elections in Hungary. Narendra Modi has been consolidating power in his own hands for over a decade as India’s prime minister. Benjamin Netanyahu has somehow survived at the top of the Israeli political system for 17 out of the last 28 years. A chainsaw-wielding rogue economist, Javier Milei, now presides as president of Argentina.

And, of course, the profoundly anti-democratic Donald Trump is returning to the White House.

Many of these right-wing leaders used the ladder of democracy to reach office, and they’ve been trying ever since to knock down that ladder so that no one can follow them into power.

These autocrats in democratic clothing have met with political opposition, some of it quite intense. In the most extreme cases, like Russia, that opposition has been jailed, exiled, and assassinated. Elsewhere, autocrats have simply declared martial law. In Tunisia, Kais Saied suspended the constitution in 2021 and put an end to the only example of democratic governance produced by the Arab Spring.

Then there are the leaders who over-reach. Donald Trump tried to find a way to stay in office after he lost the 2020 election. He attempted to overturn the results in the courts. He marshalled a crowd of agitators to pressure the vice president and Congress to withhold certification of the election. There was even talk of martial law inside the Trump White House in December 2020.

Ultimately, without the U.S. military on his side, Trump grudgingly vacated the White House.

The decision by South Korean President Suk-yeol Yoon to declare martial law on December 3 was, by comparison, a shock. To be sure, Yoon was frustrated by the considerable opposition he faced in the South Korean parliament. He promoted figures from the New Right Movement, which telegraphed his own more favorable views of the Japanese colonial period and the authoritarian modernizers of the post-Korean War era. But few expected such a brazen power grab.

Yoon probably figured that, unlike Trump, he could succeed with his martial law declaration because he had the military on his side. Indeed, Defense Minister Yong Hyun Kim confessed that martial law was all his idea. But Yoon and Kim had probably been discussing the timing of such a declaration since the summer.

Fortunately, South Korean democracy has proven remarkably durable. Perhaps because the last martial law period is still in the living memory of many people, including a generation of parliamentarians, Yoon’s opposition moved quickly to block his attempted seizure of total power. The guardrails of democracy — political institutions, courts, civil society — held firm. Yoon was impeached less than two weeks after he declared martial law.

Another key guardrail is cultural. Shame is an integral part of Korean society. A number of Korean politicians — former president Moo Hyun Roh, former Seoul mayor Won Soon Park — have committed suicide because of what they perceived to be their own shameful conduct. Defense Minister Kim also tried to commit suicide in his jail cell. Short of killing themselves, Korean politicians will also make elaborate apologies, as Yoon has done.

Compare that with politicians like Donald Trump, who never admits wrongdoing or ever apologizes. It is impossible to shame Trump, no matter what he has done, from sexual misconduct to flagrant violations of the law. Indeed, his campaign to regain the White House was largely an effort to prove to the American people that he was innocent of all charges, legal and otherwise.

Right-wing politicians generally lack shame. Putin has destroyed Ukrainian society, ruined the lives of millions of Russians, and hobbled his economy for generations to come, but he would never admit that he ever did anything wrong. Even in a country like India, where shame is an integral part of the culture, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pushed an anti-Muslim agenda, fumbled its response to the COVID crisis, and criminalized dissent — but he sees no reason to apologize for any of his actions.

This absence of shame is real and troubling, but the issue here is not cultural. Rather, it’s the refusal of leaders in putatively democratic countries to engage with their opposition, respect political institutions, and take responsibility for their mistakes. Yoon did what many right-wing leaders have done — Trump, Putin, Modi — but he wasn’t clever enough to figure out a way to concentrate power in his hands without declaring martial law, which is an obvious red line in Korea.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which rates democracies according to their relative strength, democratic standards have been eroding over the last decade. Less than 8 percent of the world’s population now live in “full democracies.” Another 50 countries, including the U.S., are “flawed democracies.”

South Korea ranks as a “full democracy,” but just barely. Its overall score is dragged down by poor marks for “political culture,” the worst of any other full democracy. Indeed, its grade is exactly the same as the U.S. In the Economist’s next report, the ability of South Korean to defend against Yoon’s declaration of martial law and the failure of U.S. voters to prevent Donald Trump from lying and bullying his way back into office will surely produce more divergent results for the two countries in the Democracy Index.

The sad truth is that South Korean efforts to save the country’s democracy — which, of course, is still an ongoing process — is increasingly anomalous in the world today. Political polarization, growing economic inequality, persistent military conflict, the stresses of climate change, and periodic shocks like the COVID pandemic have left the institutions of democracy much weaker.

In some places, like South Korea, cultural attributes like shame still exert some kind of restraint. But shame, as Donald Trump is proving, is fast becoming anachronistic.

People power in the form of right-wing appeals to populism is destroying democracy. But people power like what South Koreans have done after Yoon’s declaration of martial law can still save democracy.

Originally published in Hankyoreh.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

How MAGA made its way to South Korea

February 7, 2025 by Cathi Choi

Is Yoon Korea’s Trump? | By Cathi Choi (Winter 2025)

Some supporters of impeached South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol have adopted MAGA talking points and lines of thinking. Here, a Yoon supporter wears a Donald Trump T-shirt. Photo by Yeon-je Jung

For the first time, a sitting South Korean president has been arrested and indicted. 

In January, officials took impeached President Suk Yeol Yoon into custody and indicted him on charges of leading an insurrection over his short-lived declaration of martial law in December.

It’s a victory for the millions of beleaguered demonstrators who staged protests in freezing weather — beset with ​“insurrection insomnia” for more than 40 days — but whether Yoon will be convicted is unclear, and he has vowed to ​“fight until the end.”

Yoon faces life imprisonment or even the death penalty, and the future of South Korea’s politics and democracy hangs in the balance. Some of those politics may feel eerily similar for U.S. readers as an apparently new dynamic emerges: Trump’s MAGA influence on Yoon’s supporters.

While Yoon was barricaded inside his home, his supporters waved U.S. flags and adopted Trump’s ​“Stop the Steal” slogan to protest Yoon’s impeachment. Yoon’s own legal team cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution to claim Yoon is similarly immune from charges.

A few days after Yoon’s arrest, his supporters stormed a courthouse in Seoul. They broke windows, blasted fire extinguishers, destroyed furniture and attacked journalists. South Korean authorities arrested 90 people in connection with the violence.

Pundits have labeled this South Korea’s ​“January 6” and the pro-Yoon protests as ​“MAGA-style.”

It would be easy to identify these apparent similarities and not interrogate further. But the connections between U.S. and South Korean far-right forces are both old and new, rooted in decades of U.S. and South Korean militarism, the ongoing Korean War, and the oligarchs who profit.

A Yoon supporter wearing a hat in January 2025 in the style of Trump’s red MAGA hats. The text on this hat translates to “Oppose Unconstitutional Impeachment!” Photo by Chris Jung

The U.S. currently stations nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea, including at the largest U.S. military base overseas, Pyeongtaek’s Camp Humphreys, more than four times the size of New York City’s Central Park. The fragile 1953 Armistice Agreement that temporarily ceased fighting has still not been replaced by a lasting peace agreement, making the ongoing Korean War ​America’s longest war.

Yoon is, however, not ​“Korea’s Trump.” Not too long ago, former President Joe Biden touted what he called an ​“ironclad” alliance with Yoon; during Yoon’s 2023 visit to the White House, Yoon serenaded Biden officials with a rendition of ​American Pie. Trump, meanwhile, has indicated more of an openness to engaging with North Korea’s Jong Un Kim — an attitude echoed by cabinet picks Marco Rubio for Secretary of State and Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary,  much to the dismay of South Korea’s leadership.

Regardless, the ongoing Korean War has created a ​“permanent emergency state” in South Korea for more than 70 years. Just weeks before Yoon’s declaration of martial law, I traveled to South Korea to meet with leading women peace activists and learn firsthand how the unresolved Korean War has impacted women’s lives. 

On Election Day in the U.S., we paused our meeting in Seoul to watch reports predicting Trump’s win. We sat in silence for a moment, then resolved that transnational connections between grassroots activists and organizers would be more important than ever.

A poster with Elon Musk, Suk Yeol Yoon and Donald Trump found near Yoon’s residence in January 2025. Photo by Yasuyoshi Chiba

The ongoing events in South Korea should not just be a distant news item for U.S. readers with abstract lessons about democracy. We must understand that the U.S. has been involved with the Korean Peninsula for decades, and U.S. militarism has profoundly shaped South Korea’s political landscape.

We are already seeing activists fight back against the transnational far right. In January, an intergenerational group of Korean American activists staged a protest against Rep. Young Kim’s (R-CA) dangerous comments claiming that Korea’s pro-impeachment and pro-peace protesters undermine the U.S. alliance with South Korea. These activists presented a grassroots petition, with thousands of signatures, demanding that Kim retract her statements and instead promote principles of democracy and peace.

We should all follow suit. Recent events should move all of us to look to the root causes that got us here, and how we in the U.S. must increasingly act in solidarity with Korea’s people-powered movements for peace.

Filed Under: front_page_below_fold, Opinion, Politics Tagged With: "Stop the Steal", Cathi Choi, Kim Jong Un, Korean politics, Korean War, MAGA, North Korea, South Korea, Trump, Women Cross DMZ, Yoon Suk-yeol, Young Kim

Minnesota’s democracy under siege

February 1, 2025 by DFL, POCI Caucus

State GOP chooses a radical pathway to partisan control | By Members of Minnesota House People of Color and Indigenous Caucus (POCI) (Winter 2025)

Minnesota House on January 28 with all Republicans present while no DFL members were present. (Photo courtesy KTTC)

On the opening day of Minnesota’s 94th legislative session, Secretary of State Steve Simon adjourned the session after finding that the required 68-member quorum was not present to conduct House business.

There are 134 House districts, and voters elected a 67-67 tied House. Because neither political party has the 68 members required to conduct House business, the House DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor party) and GOP caucuses had been negotiating a power-sharing agreement, consistent with the will of the voters. House Democrats will not allow House Republicans to illegitimately push an extreme agenda.

Instead of working out how to share power in the House when the number of House Republicans and House Democrats is at a 50 percent split, House Republicans, over the course of three weeks, staged a legislative coup to defy Minnesota’s Constitution by holding sham sessions and taking unlawful, unconstitutional actions.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed Republicans a major defeat by striking down their illegitimate power grab. The Court ruled that a quorum in the House requires 68 members, meaning that none of the actions taken by Republicans over the past three weeks has any legal authority or effect.

In a related power grab, Republicans have continued to threaten the removal of a duly-elected member of the House, undermining the democratic will of 22,000 voters. Rep. Brad Tabke of Shakopee won on election night, subsequently in a recount, and finally in court, yet Republicans have said they still plan to unseat him. The reason to do this is simple: A one-seat majority would still empower House Republicans to advance their extreme agenda, including taking away reproductive freedoms, eliminating paid family leave, rolling back progress to address climate change, and ending free school meals for kids.

Our caucus is calling on House GOP members to honor the will of the voters and the rule of law. The House GOP’s attempt to seize power is not just wasting our tax dollars; it’s wasting precious time we can’t afford to lose.

One dire consequence of a legislative delay could be running out of time to pass a budget, which would shut down state government as of July 1.  A state shutdown would devastate Minnesotans: Families may unable to pay bills, crime victims would lose crucial support, infrastructure projects could be cancelled, and essential services decimated. This is not a game — it’s about the future of our state and the well-being of every resident. We are calling on Republicans to return to the negotiating table and abandon their partisan tactics so that we can govern together as Minnesotans expect and deserve. 

Republicans want to make us believe that stealing elections, disregarding court rulings, and conducting sham hearings are just part of the process. This radical path is not only dangerous but a direct assault on our democracy. Minnesotans are being told by the GOP to remain silent, to sit back and do nothing, to ignore the fear and anger rising within us. But let’s be clear: Those who seek to steal our power rely on our complacency. If we let this slide, we lose. We will not stay quiet. Fear and frustration will not stop us — they will empower us to act in the face of fascism and a country being governed by an oligarchy.  

It is clear that the GOP’s priorities lie not in protecting the will of voters or safeguarding the future for all Minnesotans, but in consolidating power and perpetuating systems that favor the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday people.

Our vision is different: A Minnesota where everyone — regardless of race, class, gender, or background — has the opportunity to thrive. We will continue to stand firm against these attacks on our democracy and fight for policies that reflect the values and voices of all Minnesotans. 

The House POCI Caucus plays an integral role in making equity a cornerstone of policymaking, prioritizing inclusion, and dismantling racism. If do not act now, the crisis’s we face in addressing housing equity, civil rights, programs supporting working families, reproductive rights, healthcare access, environmental protections, and more will be exacerbated. 

We are compelled to address the current situation proactively, we aim to preserve our strength and resources, ensuring we are optimally positioned to effectively counter any future threats that are already arising from the GOP’s MAGA — aligned agenda. We are clear-eyed that to fight back, we must stand with the people and utilize all of our legislative tools to protect our democracy, honor the will of the voters, and build a future where everyone can get ahead, not just the rich and powerful.   

The House POCI Caucus is comprised of; Rep. Aisha Gomez (DFL-Minneapolis 62A), Rep. Anquam Mahamoud (DFL-Minneapolis 62B), Rep. Athena Hollins (DFL-St. Paul 66B), Rep. Brion Curran (DFL-White Bear Lake 36B), Rep. Cedrick Frazier (DFL-New Hope 43A), Rep. Esther Agbaje (DFL-Minneapolis 59B), Rep. Ethan Cha (DFL-Woodbury 47B), Rep. Fue Lee (DFL-Minneapolis 59A), Rep. Huldah Hiltsley-(DFL- Osseo 38A), Rep. Jay Xiong (DFL-St. Paul 67B), Rep. Kaohly Vang Her (DFL-St. Paul64A), Rep. Liish Kozlowski (DFL-Duluth 08B), Rep. Liz Lee (DFL-St. Paul 67A), Rep. Mary Frances Clardy (DFL-Inver Grove Heights 53A), Rep. María Isa Pérez-Vega (DFL-St. Paul 65B), Rep. Mohamud Noor (DFL-Minneapolis 60B), Rep. Samakab Hussein (DFL-St. Paul 65A), Rep. Samantha Sencer-Mura (DFL-Minneapolis 63A), Rep. Samantha Vang (DFL-Brooklyn Center 38B).

Filed Under: MN News, Opinion Tagged With: Brad Tabke, Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, DFL, Minnesota GOP, Minnesota House People of color and Indigenous Caucus, Minnesota politics, People of Color and Indigenous Caucus, POCI, Secretary of State Steve Simon

President Yoon’s gambit

January 27, 2025 by Jinwoo Park

How the Korean people shut down an assault against their democracy | By Jinwoo Park (Winter 2025)

What happened in South Korea this past December was one of the most reckless political moves in modern history. 

On December 3, President Seok-yul Yoon declared martial law, closed the National Assembly, and sent the military to enforce his order.  This marks the first martial law in the history of the Sixth Republic (i.e., since the current democratic government was established in 1988). Similarly, there has been no declaration of martial law since 1981, when military dictator Doo-hwan Chun took power after a coup d’etat. 

A lot has happened since then, and the political drama can seem impossible to untangle. The following is my attempt to shed some light and bring meaning to South Korea’s martial law crisis of December 2024.  

Why Yoon called for martial law

In his declaration of martial law, Yoon stated that his justification was rooted in his frustration with the opposition-controlled National Assembly. He accused the Assembly of paralyzing his administration by impeaching government officials — most recently his defense minister — and blocking budgets, especially for the military and police. Yoon claimed that some members of the Assembly were “anti-government, pro-North Korean elements” working to destroy the country from within. 

This rhetoric isn’t new — it’s a classic conservative strategy in South Korea to tie any opposition movements to North Korean and/or communist influences, especially if any opposition faction is even a millimeter left of center.

The opposition, the Democratic Party of Korea, has held a majority in the Assembly since 2020, and despite Yoon’s 2022 presidential victory, his People Power Party has not been able to gain control.  After the 2024 parliamentary elections, the opposition retained the majority with 170 seats out of 300. 

It is not a big stretch to infer that Yoon called for martial law as a disruption because he didn’t like what the elected opposition was doing with its majority in the National Assembly. 

Soldiers go into the National Assembly building on December 3.

Opening moves by the military

Yoon’s martial law declaration came late at night — 10:28 p.m. — likely because he wanted a chance for the changeover to martial law to happen under the radar. Further corroboration for this rationale is the fact that the government failed to send out text alerts, something that usually happens when nationwide incidents are occurring. Within an hour of the declaration, the military, specifically the 707th Special Forces, were deployed to the National Assembly by helicopter.  

So, why would the president send the military to guard the National Assembly? Well under Article 77, Section 5 of the Constitution, if a majority of the National Assembly vote to end martial law, the president is required to accept. This law was built in as a check of presidential power, to prevent the abuse of martial law whenever the president decided he did not like the National Assembly. It essentially transfers the ultimate power to declare martial law over to the Assembly. 

This was what Yoon was trying to prevent from happening. He wanted to block members of the National Assembly from gathering at the building and voting against the declaration. The clock was now ticking for the assembly members to stop Yoon. 

Citizens fight back

At the time of the declaration of martial law, staff and some Assembly members were inside the National Assembly building. That group sprang into action, barricading themselves inside with anything they could find including desks, chairs, and other heavy objects.  Once the Special Forces soldiers started to make their way into the building, they formed human walls and used fire extinguishers to repel the troops. 

While that was happening inside, outside, word was spreading quickly despite the late hour, and hundreds, and eventually thousands of ordinary citizens rushed to the National Assembly building to block the soldiers from sealing the building off. 

In this chaos, National Assembly members were trying to get in any way they could in order to vote to repeal martial law. There is some now-famous footage of opposition leader Jae-myoung Lee jumping over the fence to get in. And, in fact, that is how many of the Assembly members got through. Ordinary citizens helped the members clearing the way and making sure they could get over the fence and onto the grounds. 

I also want to give credit to how hesitant the soldiers were, and how they just didn’t follow through with their orders to seal off the building with military force.  For instance, not a single shot was fired, even when one assemblywoman, Gwi-ryung Ahn, grabbed a soldier’s gun by the barrel and pulled on it.  The troops knew that the National Assembly members were trying to get over the fence, yet they made no attempt to stop them.  There were many reported instances when the soldiers made physical contact with civilians, but then backed off, even though their mission was to stop the National Assembly members from getting through.  

In fact, these troops certainly could have forced their way in to stop the vote. Later, it was revealed that preventing the members from assembling was part of their orders for that night. We can only conclude that evidently, in the face of all the popular support, the soldiers did not have the heart to stop the vote through military violence. Outside the building, protesters asked the soldiers not to escalate the situation, echoing past moments in Korean history, like the June Democratic Struggle of 1987, when citizens appealed directly to riot police and soldiers to stand down. 

So, thanks to the citizens, and thanks to some quiet quitting by the soldiers, 190 Assembly members — well above the majority needed — convened that night and voted to revoke martial law. Yoon was required to comply, and he announced the end of martial law shortly thereafter.

National Election Commission raid

Now this is where I want to interject another possibility — what if the whole confusing event of December 3 and 4 was just a ruse for another objective? That may sound crazy. After all, martial law is a hell of a distractor for Yoon to throw. And for what?  

However, within two minutes of the martial law announcement, an advance party of soldiers went to the National Election Commission, seized the phones of all staff there at the time, and took over the premises. 

Think about that. It took an hour for the army to go to the National Assembly. The National Election Commission got raided two minutes after the declaration, meaning the troops were quite literally waiting outside the building until martial law was announced. 

Then, additional soldiers and government agents began to arrive. Eventually, around 300 staff and officials were on site, including IT personnel from the Defense Counterintelligence Command. This was more people than the number of troops they sent to the National Assembly. 

The National Election Commission had been Yoon’s obsession for awhile. He believed there had been election fraud during the 2020 general election, when conservatives suffered a historic defeat. It resulted in the lowest number of seats won by a major conservative party in 60 years, while the voter turnout, at 66.2 percent, was the highest in the history of Korea’s general elections. This happened in 2020, despite the heavy lockdown of the pandemic.  

After this election catastrophe for conservatives, right-wing YouTubers and other media repeated and fueled some baseless claims of election fraud. The National Election Commission had very reasonable explanations for every complaint; there was no evidence to support most accusations. It is now commonly understood that these accusations were attributable only to Youtubers and conservative media sources trying to farm views and get money from angry conservatives who just couldn’t accept the new reality. 

Since Yoon had difficulty with an opposition majority National Assembly, he was prone to thinking these election fraud allegations were credible. Thus, he targeted the Election Commission. 

This rationale was corroborated by the now ex-defense minister, Yong-hyun Kim, who stated that they went to the Election Commission to investigate election fraud. 

So, let that sink in. 

President Yoon called for martial law to find evidence for election fraud accusations that were started by right wing Youtubers.

And of course, after all that trouble, they found no evidence of election fraud. 

The moment that the impeachment bill passed the National Assembly on December 14.

The long road to impeachment

The next morning, six political parties with representation in the National Assembly, including the official opposition party, jointly filed a motion to impeach President Yoon, citing his martial law declaration as a violation of democracy and an act of rebellion, among a list of other crimes. 

Public sentiment polls have been overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment, with over 70 percent supporting it. 

In order for the impeachment vote to pass, the Assembly needs a two-thirds majority — 200 votes. The People Power Party (Yoon’s party), holds 108 seats. At least eight members of Yoon’s party would have to defect for the vote to pass. Immediately after December 3, the PPP stated that while they disagree with the martial law declaration, they would not support impeachment — that they wouldn’t defect. 

But instead of voting on the impeachment, the PPP boycotted the vote on December 7. The National Assembly held two critical votes on the day of the impeachment vote: The first concerned a special investigation into First Lady Keon-hee Kim, and the second was on impeachment of President Yoon. The investigation vote failed as the PPP overwhelmingly voted against it. Then, its members started walking out before the start of the impeachment vote. Their exit left the chamber without the required quorum of 200 members to proceed with the vote.

In the wake of this action, the public backlash intensified, with massive protests across the country demanding the removal of both Yoon and the PPP. Unfazed by the PPP’s brazenness, the opposition alliance tried again. On December 11, a second impeachment bill was introduced, with the vote scheduled for December 14. As a result of rising criticism from not just the Democratic opposition, but the millions who gathered outside the National Assembly in continuous protest, a dozen PPP members defected from their party, and the second impeachment vote was passed. 

In accordance with the impeachment, President Yoon was suspended from his duties. 

A victory for the Korean people 

Much has happened since the December 14 vote, with an unending stream of political drama constantly unfolding. Here’s just a brief summary of the most important events to give an idea of how dizzying the drama has been. 

  • December 27:  Acting President Duck-soo Han was impeached by the National Assembly for delaying the appointment of Constitutional Court judges. Seven or more judges must be chosen to decide on Yoon’s impeachment trial, and there were only six judges appointed with three seats empty. 
  • December 31: Second Acting President Sang-mok Choi appointed two Constitutional Court judges but withheld a third nominee, enabling Yoon’s impeachment trial to proceed.
  • January 3: The Corruption Investigation Office attempted to arrest Yoon for insurrection and abuse of power, resulting in an hours-long standoff at his residence with resistance from the Presidential Security Service. The arrest attempt ultimately failed. 
  • January 15: The second arrest operation was carried out successfully, with more than a thousand police officers on site, leading to Yoon’s detention, making him the first sitting South Korean president to be arrested and jailed.
  • January 18: Yoon’s detention sparked violent protests at the Seoul Western District Court. Pro-Yoon demonstrators stormed the courthouse, clashed with police, and caused significant property damage, leading to multiple injuries and arrest.
  • January 26: Yoon is successfully indicted for insurrection.

The above list does not include all the smaller back and forths between those in favor of the impeachment of Yoon and those against, as well as the crazy and off-the-rails words from Yoon himself, who apparently sees no wrongdoing at any of his recent actions or statements. But despite the mess, the Korean people and its leaders have stayed on track on the important matter of bringing Yoon to justice.  

Yoon had some kind of plan, whether it was to seize power in a military coup, or to find evidence for election fraud. But he apparently forgot that Korea is a nation that has endured and overcome decades of authoritarian rule under military dictatorships, and that its people have won their political freedom back many times through continuous civil movements. Through many struggles, and by learning from past dictatorships, Koreans built a democracy that is not only legally robust but also deeply ingrained in the hearts of its citizens.

When Yoon tried to use the military to seize control, it wasn’t just lawmakers who defended against it — it was ordinary people. Although it was late at night when the public was informed of the martial law order, thousands immediately rushed to the National Assembly to protect their democracy. People were even getting into taxis from regions and cities outside of Seoul to drive in and be there, regardless of the cost. 

It is notable that even the soldiers hesitated, and some apologized as they withdrew from the demonstrators, reflecting how deeply the principles of democracy resonate even within those who were acting under the orders of the wannabe dictator. 

South Koreans have shown time and again that they won’t tolerate this kind of power grab.  From the June Democratic Struggle of 1987, which ended decades of military rule, to the peaceful candlelight protests of 2016, which impeached President Geun-hye Park, Koreans have repeatedly risen against anti-democratic forces. The recent martial law episode was a continuation of that spirit — a nation that refuses to let anyone dismantle what they’ve fought so hard to build.

Yoon’s action on December 3 is not just a story of a failed coup by a megalomaniac. Instead, it’s a story of a vibrant democracy that thrives because of the people who are ready to stand up for it. For South Koreans, democracy isn’t just a system of government — it’s a way of life they will always defend. 

Protestors assemble with signs at one of numerous protests following the December 3 martial law declaration. The demonstrator on left (as part of a sign-holding team) has the second syllable of the word (tan-hek) for “impeach.”

Filed Under: front_page_slidebox_features, Opinion, Politics Tagged With: Ahn Gwi-ryung, Choi Sang-mok, Chun Doo-hwan, Han Duk-soo, Jinwoo Park, Kim Keon-hee, Kim Yong-hyun, Lee Jae-myoung, Martial Law, South Korea, Yoon impeachment, Yoon Seok-yul

The global significance of South Korea’s leadership crisis

January 9, 2025 by John Feffer

South Korean activists are showing the world how to save democracy | By John Feffer (Winter 2025)

Protests calling for impeachment of President Suk-yeol Yoon in front of the parliament.

Democracy isn’t doing so well around the world. One poignant sign of democracy’s decline is that it’s cherished most fervently in places where it effectively doesn’t exist — in Venezuela, for example, among voters protesting a stolen election.

In existing democracies, meanwhile, voters don’t hold their defining political institutions in high regard. In the U.S., less than 20 percent of Americans think Congress is doing a good job. In the European Union, only one-third of citizens on average trust their national governments and only one-fifth trust their political parties.

Familiarity breeds contempt, which explains why voters have elected anti-democratic candidates to high office in country after country. Viktor Orban has won four straight elections in Hungary. Narendra Modi has been consolidating power in his own hands for over a decade as India’s prime minister. Benjamin Netanyahu has somehow survived at the top of the Israeli political system for 17 out of the last 28 years. A chainsaw-wielding rogue economist, Javier Milei, now presides as president of Argentina.

And, of course, the profoundly anti-democratic Donald Trump is returning to the White House.

Many of these right-wing leaders used the ladder of democracy to reach office, and they’ve been trying ever since to knock down that ladder so that no one can follow them into power.

These autocrats in democratic clothing have met with political opposition, some of it quite intense. In the most extreme cases, like Russia, that opposition has been jailed, exiled, and assassinated. Elsewhere, autocrats have simply declared martial law. In Tunisia, Kais Saied suspended the constitution in 2021 and put an end to the only example of democratic governance produced by the Arab Spring.

Then there are the leaders who over-reach. Donald Trump tried to find a way to stay in office after he lost the 2020 election. He attempted to overturn the results in the courts. He marshalled a crowd of agitators to pressure the vice president and Congress to withhold certification of the election. There was even talk of martial law inside the Trump White House in December 2020.

Ultimately, without the U.S. military on his side, Trump grudgingly vacated the White House.

The decision by South Korean President Suk-yeol Yoon to declare martial law on December 3 was, by comparison, a shock. To be sure, Yoon was frustrated by the considerable opposition he faced in the South Korean parliament. He promoted figures from the New Right Movement, which telegraphed his own more favorable views of the Japanese colonial period and the authoritarian modernizers of the post-Korean War era. But few expected such a brazen power grab.

Yoon probably figured that, unlike Trump, he could succeed with his martial law declaration because he had the military on his side. Indeed, Defense Minister Yong Hyun Kim confessed that martial law was all his idea. But Yoon and Kim had probably been discussing the timing of such a declaration since the summer.

Fortunately, South Korean democracy has proven remarkably durable. Perhaps because the last martial law period is still in the living memory of many people, including a generation of parliamentarians, Yoon’s opposition moved quickly to block his attempted seizure of total power. The guardrails of democracy — political institutions, courts, civil society — held firm. Yoon was impeached less than two weeks after he declared martial law.

Another key guardrail is cultural. Shame is an integral part of Korean society. A number of Korean politicians — former president Moo Hyun Roh, former Seoul mayor Won Soon Park — have committed suicide because of what they perceived to be their own shameful conduct. Defense Minister Kim also tried to commit suicide in his jail cell. Short of killing themselves, Korean politicians will also make elaborate apologies, as Yoon has done.

Compare that with politicians like Donald Trump, who never admits wrongdoing or ever apologizes. It is impossible to shame Trump, no matter what he has done, from sexual misconduct to flagrant violations of the law. Indeed, his campaign to regain the White House was largely an effort to prove to the American people that he was innocent of all charges, legal and otherwise.

Right-wing politicians generally lack shame. Putin has destroyed Ukrainian society, ruined the lives of millions of Russians, and hobbled his economy for generations to come, but he would never admit that he ever did anything wrong. Even in a country like India, where shame is an integral part of the culture, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pushed an anti-Muslim agenda, fumbled its response to the COVID crisis, and criminalized dissent — but he sees no reason to apologize for any of his actions.

This absence of shame is real and troubling, but the issue here is not cultural. Rather, it’s the refusal of leaders in putatively democratic countries to engage with their opposition, respect political institutions, and take responsibility for their mistakes. Yoon did what many right-wing leaders have done — Trump, Putin, Modi — but he wasn’t clever enough to figure out a way to concentrate power in his hands without declaring martial law, which is an obvious red line in Korea.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which rates democracies according to their relative strength, democratic standards have been eroding over the last decade. Less than 8 percent of the world’s population now live in “full democracies.” Another 50 countries, including the U.S., are “flawed democracies.”

South Korea ranks as a “full democracy,” but just barely. Its overall score is dragged down by poor marks for “political culture,” the worst of any other full democracy. Indeed, its grade is exactly the same as the U.S. In the Economist’s next report, the ability of South Korean to defend against Yoon’s declaration of martial law and the failure of U.S. voters to prevent Donald Trump from lying and bullying his way back into office will surely produce more divergent results for the two countries in the Democracy Index.

The sad truth is that South Korean efforts to save the country’s democracy — which, of course, is still an ongoing process — is increasingly anomalous in the world today. Political polarization, growing economic inequality, persistent military conflict, the stresses of climate change, and periodic shocks like the COVID pandemic have left the institutions of democracy much weaker.

In some places, like South Korea, cultural attributes like shame still exert some kind of restraint. But shame, as Donald Trump is proving, is fast becoming anachronistic.

People power in the form of right-wing appeals to populism is destroying democracy. But people power like what South Koreans have done after Yoon’s declaration of martial law can still save democracy.

Originally published in Hankyoreh.

Filed Under: front_page_below_fold, Opinion, Politics Tagged With: democracy, John Feffer, Kim Yong Hyun, Martial Law, South Korea, Yoon Suk-yeol

Unofficial envoy Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy in the DPRK

January 5, 2025 by Jimmy Carter

A 2011 KQ essay reiterates the sticky issues plaguing the U.S. relationship with North Korea, then and now | By Jimmy Carter (Winter 2011 issue)

Former President Jimmy Carter meets with then DPRK leader Jong Il Kim in North Korea in 1994. First Lady Rosalynn Carter on left.

Editor’s note:  As the 39th U.S. President Jimmy Carter is honored after his recent passing at age 100, we are reminded of his many distinguished accomplishments of his post-presidential era, one of which was as an unofficial U.S. envoy from the U.S. to both North Korea and South Korea.  This essay, under the headline “The winding road to permanent peace: A short history of North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”  from KQ’s  Winter 2011 issue (available in original form in the KQ Archive), was written by Jimmy Carter after the former president was asked to consult with the North Korean leaders on its development of enriched uranium. The enriched uranium process was viewed as an infraction of the non-aggression agreements that came out of the Six Party Talks.

This very factual essay, which reads like an update from a diplomat, shows Carter’s skill at reading between the lines of the North Koreans’ acts of aggression, and noting that that nation’s behavior may be a thinly-veiled signal that “they deserve respect in negotiations that will shape their future.”   At the end of the essay, Carter reiterates his belief that avoiding war will certainly require “a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953,”  a step that activists are still working to bring about in 2025, 14 years after Carter’s essay was first published.

No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans, but it is entirely possible that their recent revelation of their uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang’s shelling of a South Korean island last November are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations that will shape their future. Ultimately, the choice for the U.S. may be between diplomatic niceties and avoiding a catastrophic confrontation.

Dealing effectively with North Korea has long challenged the U.S. We know that the state “religion” of this secretive society is juche, which means self-reliance and avoidance of domination by others. The North’s technological capabilities under conditions of severe sanctions and national poverty are surprising. Efforts to display its military capability through the shelling of Yeongpyong Island and through weapons testing has provoked anger and a desire for retaliation.  Meanwhile, our close diplomatic and military ties with South Korea impels us to comply with its leaders leaders’ policies.  

The North has threatened armed conflict before.  Nearly eight years ago, I wrote about how, in June 1994, President II Sung Kim expelled The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and proclaimed that spent fuel rods could be reprocessed into plutonium. Kim threatened to destroy Seoul if increasingly severe sanctions were imposed on his nation.

Desiring to resolve the crisis through direct talks with the U.S., Kim invited me to Pyongyang to discuss the outstanding issues. With approval from President Bill Clinton, I went and reported the positive results of these one-on-one discussions to the White House. Direct negotiations ensued in Geneva between a U.S. special envoy and a North Korean delegation, resulting in an “Agreed Framework” that stopped North Korea’s fuel-cell reprocessing and restored IAEA inspection for eight years.

With evidence that Pyongyang was acquiring enriched uranium in violation of the Agreed Framework, President George W. Bush — who had already declared North Korea part of an “axis of evil” and a potential target — made discussions with North Korea contingent on its complete rejection of a nuclear explosives program and terminated monthly shipments of fuel oil. Subsequently, North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors and resumed reprocessing its fuel rods. It has now acquired enough plutonium for perhaps seven nuclear weapons.

Sporadic negotiations over next few years among North Korea, the U.S., South Korea, Japan, China and Russia (the so-called Six Parties) produced, in September 2005, an agreement that reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of nonaggression by the U.S., and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953. Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005, and the overall situation has been clouded by North Korea’s development and testing of nuclear devices and medium-and long-range missiles, and military encounters with South Korea.

North Korea insists on direct talks with the U.S., while leaders in Pyongyang consider South Korea’s armed forces to be controlled from Washington and maintain that South Korea was not party to the 1953 cease-fire. Since the Clinton administration, our country has negotiated through the six-party approach, largely avoiding substantive bilateral discussions, which would have excluded South Korea.

This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent ceasefire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the Six Parties in September 2005. With no authority to mediate any disputes, I relayed this message to the State Department and White House. Chinese leaders indicated support of this bilateral discussion. North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be “on the table” for discussions with the U.S., although uranium purification -a very slow process, was not covered in the 1994 agreements.

Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the U.S., it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the “temporary” cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: A military attack supported by the U.S. along with efforts to change the political regime.

The writer was the 39th president of the U.S. This op-ed was published Nov. 24, 2010 by The Washington Post. For more information, visit: Waging Peace. Fighting Disease. Building Hope. www.cartercenter.org

Filed Under: front_page_below_fold, North Korea, Opinion Tagged With: Agreed Framework, Aijalon Gomes, Carter and North Korea, DPRK, Jimmy Carter, Juche, Kim Jong-il, North Korea, Six Party Talks, South Korea, Yeongpyong Island

Korea elected a “king” again

December 14, 2024 by Nam-ku Jeong

“Brain rot” resulting from the haphazard consumption of online media | By Nam-ku Jeong (Fall 2024)

A TV in Seoul Station plays a live broadcast of President Suk-yeol Yoon’s address to the public on December 12, 2024.

The botched insurrection orchestrated by Korean President Suk-yeol Yoon on December 3 is shocking in several respects.

Yoon had the horrific ambition of mobilizing the army to round up all the politicians who defied him, to paralyze the National Assembly and to muzzle the press, concentrating all power into his hands. His belief that the ruling party’s crushing defeat in the parliamentary elections last April was the result of election-rigging and his conceit of justifying an insurrection by prying open the National Election Commission’s computer systems is absurd to a pitiful degree.

The word of the year, according to Oxford University Press, is “brain rot,” defined as the mental deterioration resulting from the haphazard consumption of online media. I doubt a better example of brain rot than Yoon will be found for a long time to come.

The Korean people’s democratic capacity may have failed to keep the Yoon administration from running the economy, and people’s standard of living, into the ground, but Koreans did put an immediate stop to this insurrection. That’s a strength they have cultivated through decades of bloodshed.

Records of the Joint People’s Association — throngs of ordinary people including rice vendors, butchers, entertainers and shoe menders who gathered by the thousands and the tens of thousands to Jongno, Seoul, in the winter of 1898 and demanded the establishment of a parliament for 42 days on end — are thrilling to read, even today.

That association was the dynamo behind the March 1 Movement in 1919, when Koreans around the country demanded independence from the Japanese, with more than a thousand martyred for the cause. That movement bore fruit in the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea, which was grounded in democratic republicanism.

Following Korea’s liberation from Japanese rule, Koreans have reclaimed popular sovereignty from the clutches of tyrants at several key moments, including the April Revolution in 1960, the Gwangju Uprising in 1980, and the June Democratic Struggle in 1987. Whenever leaders have taken the wrong path, their error has been rectified by crowds of candle-bearing protestors.

Once again, this insurrection is being resolved according to the method outlined in the Constitution. The National Assembly has just impeached Yoon; a special counsel will arrest, detail and charge him; and a new administration will be established through democratic elections. In short, the sovereign people will soon triumph.

But despite such heartening reflections, there’s a disturbing aspect of this incident that we must not ignore.

Many have compared Yoon’s insurrection to the coup launched by a military faction under Doo-hwan Chun on Dec. 12, 1979. The two incidents are indeed similar in the sense that enough troops were mobilized to inflict major loss of life.

But the chilling thing about Yoon’s insurrection is that it was a self-coup, in which a legally elected president attempts to install himself as ruler for life. That’s basically what Syngman Rhee did in Busan in 1952, and what Chung-hee Park did with his Yushin constitution in October 1972.

Once again, the people were nearly robbed of their sovereignty by a president they had elected.

In January 2012, as Korea was looking forward to its 18th presidential election, I wrote a column for Hankyoreh newspaper titled “A country that elects kings.”

“We live in a country that elects people who are presidents in name, but kings in fact. Each king is killed (politically speaking) and a new one elected every five years,” I wrote that column.

The notion of “a country that elects kings” comes from “Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power,” by Karl Wittfogel. Wittfogel wrote that choosing kings through elections rather than dynastic succession does not necessarily mean a lesser degree of despotism.

His observation still rings true. We give our presidents too much authority. We are enthralled with the concepts of the “wise king” and the “enlightened despot”; we are so obsessed with “our side” gaining the upper hand that we discount the disadvantages and dangers of the imperial presidential system.

The consequence is a series of failed kings. A president generally comes to power because of the failures of their predecessor, rather than through public support for policies tackling issues facing the community. And then, before long, the president is abandoned by a disappointed public. Problem-solving politics has disappeared, giving way to a fierce struggle for power.

This insurrection came about because the early revelation of Yoon’s failure put him in danger of becoming a lame duck. That drove him to rip off the mask of a president and reveal the face of a tyrant.

That means we’ve wasted nearly three years without addressing fateful issues looming over the country, including our sagging growth potential, polarization and abysmal birth rate.

Obviously, we need a new president. But that alone won’t solve our problems.

Our top priority should be the prosecution service, which has degenerated into a handmaiden of power under the Yoon administration, just like the police under Syngman Rhee and the military under Chung-hee Park and Doo-hwan Chun.

There’s also an urgent need for political reform to ensure that politics reflects the will of the voters through democratic processes.

The Korean people need to wipe the concept of the “wise king” from our minds and amend the Constitution to erect clear boundaries between the three branches of government. Drafting and reviewing the budget should be brought under the supervision and control of the sovereign people.

Given the extreme polarization of the Korean political terrain, that road may look long and rugged, but it’s a road we must take.

The tree of democracy need not be refreshed by the blood of the citizens — but perhaps it does need the blood of kings, from time to time.

The ringleader behind the insurrection and those who played an essential role in that insurrection should be strictly prosecuted under the law; no pardon should be given. That’s the minimum prescription to prevent future presidents from playing king.

(This column, originally appeared in Hankyoreh ~ https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition )

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

Filed Under: Opinion, Politics Tagged With: April Revolution 1960, Chun Doo-hwan, Gwangju uprising, Hankyoreh, Jeong Nam-ku, Joint People's Association, June Democratic Uprising 1987, March 1 Movement 1919, Martial Law, Martial Law in South Korea, Park Chung-hee, South Korea, Syngman Rhee, Yoon Suk-yeol, Yushin Constitution

Beyond Utopia: Another false narrative about Korea

March 2, 2024 by Tim Shorrock

A look at the producers of a recent PBS documentary, and its bias in relating Korean modern history | By Tim Shorrock (Winter 2024)

“Growing up in North Korea, you learn nothing of the outside world.” – Director Madeleine Gavin, boasting with former high-ranking CIA operative Sue Mi Terry about their film Beyond Utopia, which was passed over for an Academy Award nomination.

Remember The Interview, the satirical Seth Rogen film depicting the assassination of North Korea’s leader Jong Un Kim by two CIA operatives, which was released by Sony Pictures on Christmas Day in 2014? You should. When North Korea allegedly hacked Sony in an apparent attempt to sabotage the film, then-President Barack Obama, whose top national security aides had previewed the film, led an unprecedented campaign with Michael Moore and other Hollywood liberals urging Sony to release it.

After millions of gullible Americans followed their leaders into theaters across the country, Thor Halvorssen, a right-wing Venezuelan activist based in New York, led a flamboyant campaign by North Korean defectors in South Korea to illegally air-drop DVDs of the film into the North using hot-air balloons launched from a spot just south of the DMZ. That, in turn, sparked a furious response from Kim’s influential sister Yo Jong Kim, and inflamed domestic politics in South Korea, with repercussions lasting until today.

Now, 10 years later, at a time of intensifying tensions on the Korean peninsula, Halvorssen has forged an alliance of Hollywood liberals, prominent North Korean defectors, and a former U.S. intelligence official to produce another film. The intent is seemingly to undermine Kim’s North Korea, and to prime Americans for a regime change, which the South Korean right has sought after, along with the Pentagon, and elements of the U.S. national security state.

Halvorssen’s partners are Sue Mi Terry, a former high-ranking CIA official with the Bush administration, who has been  affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the government-funded Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Two executive producers, Hannah Song and Blaine Vess, work with Liberty in North Korea (LINK), which claims to operate what it calls an “underground railroad” for North Korean defectors and frequently briefs the U.S. government about the DPRK. Another producer, defector Hyeonseo Lee, works closely with Halvorssen’s Human Rights Foundation (HRF).

The result is Beyond Utopia, a documentary film claiming to be “the gripping story of families who risk everything escaping North Korea.” The film, directed by Madeleine Gavin, is told from the perspective of a Seoul pastor who helps North Koreans stranded in China get to the South. It  and premiered January 9 on PBS’s Independent Lens series. 

Gavin’s January 14 interview on CNN was the first shot of an expensive media campaign that producers hoped would climax on March 10 with the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film. But they failed to convince Academy members responsible for viewing the eligible films that it was worthy of an Oscar.

Halversson’s Human Rights Foundation (HRF), CSIS, and its other producers at Ideal Partners Film and LINK have been pushing the film relentlessly on Twitter (now X) and on their own websites as the must-see documentary of the awards season. Until the Oscar rejection, the campaign was a smashing success. Last year, the film captured the Sundance Film Festival Audience Award, and it has been rapturously reviewed by the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, and nearly all of the Hollywood press (for now, it can be viewed, in its entirety, at the PBS Independent Lens website here).

The plight of North Koreans escaping from a country plagued by a forever war and ruled by a hereditary military dictatorship (pictured above in a still from the film) is worth learning about; last year, nearly 200 made it to the South. 

But their stories are not new to Americans. Thanks to the prominent defector Yeonmi Park, who serves on the board of Halvorssen’s HRF, the U.S. public has been fed a steady diet of frightening and often exaggerated tales depicting North Korea as a cruel, demonic state that despises its own people and uses extreme measures to control them. Park’s stories, usually accompanied by well-timed tears and a quivering voice, have made her a media darling in a country where many people, liberals and conservatives alike, simply love to hate North Korea.

In 2014, the New York Times was one of the first publications to fall for Park’s fantastic stories. As the North Korean celebrity du jour, Park’s appearances on media outlets such as NBC News and the popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience  have drawn millions of viewers. But under scrutiny, many of her claims have been found to be false, as the Washington Post, another early champion of Park, discovered in a devastating takedown in 2023.

Park’s unproven descriptions of North Korea has made her a subject of ridicule on social media, especially among Korean Americans. Recently, her embrace of the tenets of the MAGA movement, particularly its opposition to “DEI,” or diversity, equity and inclusion, has made her a big Elon Musk fan. In December, she was a prominent speaker at a Turning Point USA conference with Ted Cruz, Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk and other MAGA reactionaries.

Yeonmi Park

The producers of Beyond Utopia seem to have taken a lesson from Park’s experience and her descent into a far-right ideology. The film is designed to pull on liberal heartstrings by depicting the struggles of everyday North Koreans as they make their way through China and Southeast Asia to South Korea and beyond. According to Gavin, Beyond Utopia was put together with video from hidden cameras provided to her by the film’s hero and star witness, Pastor Seungeun Kim  of the Caleb Mission, a South Korean religious organization that helps North Koreans make the difficult journey from their home to South Korea.

With Kim’s footage, the director told the media website Deadline, she “started to feel the pulse and heartbeat of these people” by “cracking open North Korea and what it’s like.” To gather information, she claimed to have scoured the internet and “read everything she could get her hands on” about North Korea “in every language [and] every country.” Her research, she claimed to CNN, contrasts sharply with people in the DPRK, who grow up learning “nothing about the outside world.”

Pastor Seungeun Kim

Judging from Gavin’s historical account of Korea’s division and the Korean War, however, North Koreans know far more about the American role in Korea and the “outside world” than Gavin herself will ever know about Korea.

Her vaunted internet skills appear to be skewed to the far-right and hand-fed to her by Terry, the former CIA operative who produced the film. She doesn’t investigate what happens to defectors when they get to the South, or why some of the 35,000 defectors in the ROK choose to return to the DPRK. And throughout the film, it’s obvious she has missed the large volume of material available on the internet and any public library about the Korean War, the origins of North Korea’s nuclear confrontation with the U.S., and the economic conditions that have led many of its citizens to flee.

That point was made forcefully in a January 7 “open letter” to Lois Vossen, Executive Producer at Independent Lens, from three prominent Asian American filmmakers, Deann Borshay Liem, Hye-Jung Park, and J.T. Takagi. 

“We are concerned that Beyond Utopia presents an unbalanced and inaccurate narrative about Korean history and North Korean society,” they wrote in the letter, which they also posted on the media platform Medium. “While the film’s verité sequences of the Roh and Lee families’ plight are compelling, noticeably lacking is any mention of the ongoing impact of the Korean War and U.S. policies that have destabilized the livelihood and well-being of North Korea’s people — factors that cause families like the Rohs and Lees to leave the country.”

In their letter, Liem, Park, and Takagi explain how the film ignores the impact of the Korean War and the decades-long strategy by the U.S. government to undermine and weaken the North Korean state.

“Beyond Utopia implies that identifying brutalities and helping North Koreans flee to freedom are the only solutions to North Korea’s human rights violations,” they write. “To be sure, the North Korean government, as all countries which ascribe to the United Nations charter, should be held accountable for breaches in human rights. But U.S. policies that have destabilized the human security of the North Korean people for the past 70 years must also be held accountable. We believe that diplomacy, engagement, and building trust are more sustainable and effective ways to improve the lives of everyone on the Korean Peninsula.”

A transcript of the film’s history section underscores how much Gavin and her CIA-bred producer stray from the truth about North Korea. In a sidebar that follows this article, I’ve posted a few excerpts from Gavin’s narration, followed by my own analysis showing the extent of the director’s deliberate obfuscation of Korean history and America’s role in it.

Most problematic, in the view of its critics, are the way North Korea’s economic ills and current conditions are approached by Gavin and the producers. For example, the devastating impact of U.S. and UN sanctions on the civilian population is not even addressed. As the authors of the open letter told PBS’s Independent Lens, “U.S.-led sanctions underpin the difficult economic conditions portrayed in the film. North Korea is one of the most heavily-sanctioned countries in the world.” Kee Park of the Harvard University Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, a neurosurgeon who has trained doctors and regularly performed surgeries in North Korea, has called these sanctions ‘warfare without bullets.'”

The authors also take issue with a sequence in the film about North Koreans “coveting human waste.” This, the directors wrote, “is simply callous. Other countries also use human waste as a fertilizer and for the production of methane gas. In the case of North Korea, sanctions severely limit the country’s capacity to import oil, fertilizer, and even spare parts to run farm equipment. In the absence of this information, the sequence promotes derision rather than empathy for the plight of ordinary people struggling to get by with extremely scarce resources.”

I can personally attest that the use of human waste for fertilizer was very common in South Korea and Japan during the years I grew up there during and after the Korean War (the photo above was taken by my father in Seoul in 1959).  Anyone who lived in Korea at the time remembers the “honey bucket men” who would pick up the waste and deliver it to farms (once, walking in rural fields near my house in Seoul in 1960, one of my siblings had the awful experience of falling in a pool of human fertilizer, an experience engrained in our family’s collective memory). To make its use a key point in ridiculing North Korea is simply racist.

In her response to the open letter, Gavin, the director, stated that her film “

attempts to give voice to North Koreans, people who have been largely unseen and unheard by the outside world for more than 75 years. Our goal was to honor the families that trusted us with their stories and to provide audiences with a window into Pastor Kim’s lifelong dedicated work. We have been humbled and gratified by the wonderful reception that the film has received.  

She adds: “Our film does not set out to present a comprehensive history of the Korean War, or the development of the North Korean state.”  However, Gavin’s factual misrepresentations, intentional or not, should raise serious questions for any documentary seeking Hollywood’s highest prize for truth-telling. So, too, should the politics of the film.

The politics of regime change

Like The Interview, the film Beyond Utopia is intended to build public support in the U.S. for outside intervention — preferably U.S. intervention — in Korea. This kind of support would be important if there should be another Korean War, or in the unlikely scenario of a political collapse in the North. 

That theme was underscored last year by the Seungeun Kim, the South Korean pastor whose work is a focus of the film, in an interview with Politico. “I want the regime to collapse,” he stated.  Asked what happens in those circumstances, Kim replied: “I’m afraid that it’s going to be chaotic… They’ve been living under control, like brainwashing. They never really make their own choices.”

Kim added “So when this regime collapses, people won’t know what to do. It will be all chaos. We need to be prepared for how to control the chaos (my italics). But my assumption if they collapse is the Chinese government is going to take over first. If they collapse right now, the Chinese will try to take over faster than anybody else. I think China would try to manipulate and use the North Korean situation to deal with the United States.”

That, of course, is a scenario often discussed by U.S. national security officials. As I reported in 2020 in Responsible Statecraft, Avril Haines, President Biden’s director of national intelligence, has publicly argued that any U.S. pressure campaign against North Korea must be accompanied by “intensive contingency planning” in preparation for a “collapse” of the Kim regime. Such planning, she emphasized in a talk at the Brookings Institution in 2017, “must be done not only with [South Korea], but also with China, and of course Japan.”

The film’s executive producer Thor Halvorssen, has shown through his actions how much he believes in regime change. His record of political intervention and interference in South Korea on behalf of North Koreans who he believes are craving American intervention (and his support) is a story in itself. It’s important to understand this man, who undoubtedly wished to be one of those accepting an Oscar, if his film had been nominated.

Halvorssen is a member of the Venezuelan aristocracy. He is the first cousin of Leopoldo Lopez, a prominent right-wing politician in Venezuela, and a major supporter of Juan Guaido, the right-winger usurper once recognized by the U.S. government as the de facto leader of Venezuela. Both Lopez and Guido have been major recipients of money from the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy, which has also funded many North Korean defectors.

HRF often speaks through its chairman, Garry Kasparov, a fanatically-anticommunist opponent of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Not surprisingly, Kasparov disapproves of any attempt to end the Korean War through dialogue, as South Korean President Jae-in Moon attempted in 2018, when he invited top officials from Jong Un Kim’s government to the South for the Winter Olympics. 

Moon “claims to be using the games to foster goodwill, but the reality is that the Hermit Kingdom has taken this opportunity to stage one of history’s great whitewashing operations,” Kasparov wrote in the Washington Post (he was wrong: the talks led to two years of relative peace and the suspension of North Korea’s missile tests and U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises).

Halvorssen founded the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) in 2005, to “unite people — regardless of their political, cultural, and ideological orientations — in the common cause of defending human rights and promoting liberal democracy globally,” according to its Internal Revenue Service Form 990 tax statement. Those forms show that HRF received over $68.8 million in “public support” between 2017 and 2021, a princely sum for any non-profit. 

The foundation hasn’t disclosed the source of the money since journalist Max Blumenthal disclosed in The Electronic Intifada that the HRF received nearly $800,000 from the extreme-right (and Islamaphobic) Donors Capital Fund and $325,000 from the conservative Sarah Scaife Foundation from 2007 to 2011.

Since its founding, much of HRF’s efforts have gone into “exposing” human rights violations in North Korea and smuggling information into the country (“Flash Drives for Freedom“). It’s also a sworn enemy of China; through its “CCP Disruption Initiative,” HRF “endeavors to increase awareness about the CCP’s ongoing attacks on civil liberties and inspire a change in public attitudes toward Xi Jinping’s authoritarian regime.” As Blumenthal has rightly observed, HRF “functions as a de facto publicity shop for U.S.-backed anti-government activists in countries targeted by Washington for regime change.”

Halvorssen’s extreme-right allies in South Korea

Halvorssen and his organization claim to be non-partisan. But, like Gordon Chang, another fanatical critic of North Korea, Halversson has formed close relationships with the far-right in South Korea and directly intervened in that country’s affairs by vehemently attacking progressives, both South Korean and American, who prefer diplomatic negotiations to war with North Korea.  (With respect to activities of this film’s sponsors, it is also important to note that Adrian Hong, one of the founders of LINK, which helped produce the film, was the leader in 2019 of a botched attempt by armed vigilantes to seize the North Korean Embassy in Madrid and kick off a rebellion against leader Jong Un Kim).

Halvorssen’s twisted politics of red-baiting were on full view in 2015, when the Korean peace activist Christine Ahn joined with Gloria Steinem, Ann Wright, Medea Benjamin, two winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, and over a dozen other women from around the world to walk across the DMZ in an attempt to jump-start peace talks between North and South Korea. “The women became, willingly or unwillingly, shills for North Korea’s dictatorship,” Halverrson wrote in a misogynistic attack in the liberal webzine Foreign Policy (Deann Borshay Liem, one of the signers of the PBS letter, directed Crossings, a film about the 2015 march, which I covered for Politico).

Women Cross DMZ in 2015, Gloria Steinem and Christine Ahn (center). Photo by Stephen Wunrow

Halvorssen and his sleuths apparently scour the world for anyone who engages with North Koreans. One of his targets is the Uruek Symphony Orchestra in New York, which holds annual concerts where American and North Korean music is played. It is one of the only venues where Americans can mingle freely with North Korean diplomats at the UN. (He has also attacked me for criticizing U.S. policy in South Korea over the issue of Gwangju and U.S. military bases. In one post on Twitter, he claimed that I purposely ignore North Korea as the “cruelest dictatorship;” after I attempted to open a dialogue about the DPRK, he kept up the vitriol, so I blocked him).

In his activities in South Korea, Halvorssen works closely with Sang-hak Park, a controversial “defector-activist” who uses funds from HRF and other U.S. organizations to send his propaganda balloons across the border into North Korea. His actions with Halvorssen have attracted enormous attention in NK News and other media sites that sympathize with defectors as well as the foreign press, including Voice of America and The Hollywood Reporter. 

These balloon launches have deeply angered Koreans who live in close proximity to the launch sites, which are near the southwestern side of the DMZ border; it has also been criticized by the Gyeonggi Province government, which encompasses the western DMZ area of South Korea.

The situation became untenable for local and national governments in 2017, when South Korea’s President Jae-in Moon was engaged in delicate negotiations with North Korea that led to a brief, two-year period of peace between South and North.

“The brazen attempts by some defectors to disseminate propaganda leaflets in North Korea makes a mockery of South Korea’s laws and creates anxiety for people living on the border,” Gyeonggi’s vice-governor said at the time. “Gyeonggi Province will fully cooperate with the police and with cities and counties on the border and will apply all provincial resources to fully block all illegal distribution of propaganda leaflets.” In response to Park and Halversson’s actions, the Moon government, backed by the National Assembly, passed a law restricting the actions.

Moon’s actions drew a swift response from Halvorssen and other U.S. groups and individuals who support Park and his band of defectors. “The South Korean government’s investigation of Sang-hak Park, head of the Coalition for a Free North Korea, over the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets is a turning point in history,” Halversson told the right-wing Chosun Ilbo, Seoul’s largest daily, in 2020. “It’s a scandalous act.”

The Venezuelan also launched a public attack on President Moon for pushing the legislation limiting the launch of his balloons (so did CSIS, the former ideological home of Beyond Utopia producer Sue Mi Terry). “This is a tragedy of catastrophic proportions for the North Korean people,” Halvorssen declared in a press release. “Defectors are the only people capable of representing the voices of the 25 million North Koreans living without access to the Internet, without access to outside mail, or to any uncensored information.” He called the bill “a shameful attempt by the Republic of Korea’s government to discriminate against [defectors’] fundamental rights and treat the refugee community like second-class citizens.”

As in so many of his diatribes, Halversson seems to forget he is not a Korean citizen. And ironically, the law he and CSIS denounced so strenuously has remained on the books under the right-wing government of current President Suk Yeol Yoon (Halversson met last October with Yoon’s Unification Minister to discuss human rights in North Korea).

Halvorssen’s arrogance seems to have rubbed off on Park, his ally in the balloon launches and also a member of the HRF board. Park has come under scrutiny in Korea, including from NK News, which is usually quite friendly to the defector community in South Korea. 

“Numerous accounts from fellow defector-activists,” NK News reported in 2020, “paint a picture of a provocateur whose sloganeering and brash methods have alienated even his partners. The interviews also offer a glimpse into a grassroots activism community mired by questionable incentives and misappropriation of finances — and a culture where winning foreign grants has become an end unto itself.”

“Park’s approach has also made him something of an enfant terrible in South Korea, even in the close-knit world of North Korea human rights activism,” the article went on. “At his launch sites in villages near the North Korean border, he has scuffled with local residents, who oppose his work for fear that the balloons put a target above their heads. When faced with this sort of resistance, Park has been known to fly into a rage, accusing anyone who stands in his way of being a communist.”

The CIA officer

The Beyond Utopia co-producer who is getting the most attention in the media is Sue Mi Terry. She was the director of the Asia Program at the U.S. government’s Wilson Center in Washington from 2021 to 2023. Before she joined CSIS as a senior analyst, she spent seven years (2001 to 2008) at the Central Intelligence Agency, where she “produced hundreds of intelligence assessments — including a record number of contributions to the President’s Daily Brief, the intelligence community’s most prestigious product,” according to the Wilson bio. From 2008 to 2009 she was a director for Korea and Japan at the National Security Council, and from 2008 to 2009 she was the deputy national intelligence officer for East Asia at the National Intelligence Council.

Terry’s experience as one of Bush’s top intelligence advisers on North Korea is significant. It was during these years that North Korea exploded its first atomic bomb, sparking the “nuclear crisis” that continues today. 

That test occurred in 2006, five years after Bush rejected the idea of negotiating with the Kim government. Bush did that at the urging of the CIA in the wake of President Clinton’s Agreed Framework with Jong Il Kim that halted North Korea’s nuclear fission program for eight years and almost led to a broad agreement with Pyongyang to halt its missiles sales (see my detailed 2017 article on this agreement in The Nation). After leaving the CIA, Terry took her expertise — and her opposition to engagement — to CSIS, where she honed a reputation as a hard-liner, becoming a favorite in the media.

Her disdain for North Korea was on display in 2013, when tensions escalated between the Obama administration and Pyongyang just before the fiasco about the film The Interview. In an interview with Spencer Ackerman in the neocon-techie magazine Wired, Terry, described by Ackerman as “one of the CIA’s former top Pyongyang analysts,” predicted that “North Korea will launch an attack” that will be “something sneaky and creative,” and warned that an “all-out war with South Korea would spell the end of the North Korean regime.”

Dae Jung Kim and George W. Bush at the White House 2001.

No attack ever came, of course. Ackerman is now the national security correspondent for The Nation; I hope his reporting on the next inevitable crisis with the DPRK is better researched than his work at Wired). 

In response to the 2006 crisis, the actions of Bush and his advisors were catastrophic. Stephen Costello, a Washington-based consultant who has worked closely with progressive movements in South Korea, told me recently. “The Bush group’s ideological fanaticism not only provoked and enabled the creation of the North’s nuclear and missile capabilities, it also eliminated the leverage that could have improved human rights in North Korea.”

That could be said of Terry as well. She has become a big supporter of the Biden administration’s tough approach to North Korea, particularly its formation of a trilateral military alliance with South Korea and Japan that has drawn sharp criticism from the North and raised military tensions in Korea to their highest levels in years. 

Talking to the Washington Post with the fanatical neocon Max Boot, Terry heaped praise on South Korean President Yoon as a “profile in courage” and blasted his predecessor President Moon for “scuttling” an earlier agreement with Japan that was repudiated by South Korea. Yoon, who has condemned Moon and his party for their engagement policies with North Korea, is now one of the most unpopular leaders in South Korea’s history.

Lately, Terry has turned her attention to more profitable opportunities than writing opinion pieces. Her LinkedIn profile lists her as “the founder of Peninsula Strategies Inc., an advisory firm specializing in Korean issues with both government and corporate clients, and a senior advisor to Macro Advisory Partners, a global advisory firm.”

Peninsula Strategies Inc. does not appear to have a website, but Macro Advisory does. It looks like a typical intelligence contractor led by former high-ranking national security officials and think tank executives “who will help you interpret the geopolitical and economic forces impacting your business and develop strategies to navigate them.” Terry is listed as a senior adviser who “advises clients on Korea.” It is well-connected; from 2017 to 2020, Macro Advisory was the corporate home for Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security advisor. During his time there, Sullivan earned $37 million a year, according to The American Prospect.

With producers like Halvorssen and Terry involved, it’s impossible to see Beyond Utopia as anything more than a propaganda exercise. At the very least, the media and the Hollywood elite reviewing the film should be asking tough questions of its director and producers about their intent. Moreover, a film documentary should provide the full truth about its subject, not a distorted vision reflecting the beliefs of its producers and funders. That, too, is the prime concern of Liem and the other Asian American directors.

The open letter to the film’s executive producer Lois Vossen at Independent Lens asks her to “add a disclaimer on the film and on the website that indicates the film represents only one perspective of what is a highly-controversial situation and its causes, and offer additional resources for your viewers.” The letter also challenged Independent Lens to “pursue alternative, diverse programming for audiences seeking further information about the issues raised by this film.”

In particular, the Asian American filmmakers wrote, alternative programming should include the voices of Asian Americans, particularly Koreans, “who have a critical understanding of this history and who have been researching, writing about, and grappling with issues of displacement, war, peace, and the impact of U.S. policies on the Korean peninsula.”

Responding to the letter, Vossen and the film’s director wrote that “our goal was to provide only enough background information to ground the personal journeys of our participants, and this historical information was thoroughly vetted by numerous experts and scholars for accuracy and fairness; We are not aware of a single factual error.” But that claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

(related sidebar feature below)

Brainwashing can go two ways: A point-by-point refutation of the documentary Beyond Utopia’s version of Korean history

US Air Force B-29 Superfortresses dropping bombs during the Korean War.  The U.S. dropped more bombs on North Korea than on the entire Pacific region during World War II.

Beyond Utopia provides a history of North and South Korea that corresponds with the views of the South Korean right and military think tanks in Washington, and is cleverly designed to undermine the legitimacy of the North Korean state founded in 1948.

As a result, Madeleine Gavin, the director who narrates parts of the film, comes off sounding much like the flamboyant defector Yeonmi Park, who often paints a picture of the North that is so fantastic that even the Washington Posthas come to doubt her version of events.

Here is Gavin, as summarized by Deadline:

North Korea. You r house is on fire. What do you try to rescue first? Your kids? Your pet? No, the first thing you reach for is the portrait of the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-un and his father and grandfather that is hanging on your wall, as mandated by the authoritarian government. Everything else can wait. Such is the bizarre and grim reality of North Korea that emerges in Beyond Utopia… Despite the North Korean regime’s attempts to brainwash the populace into believing they live in an earthly paradise, over a period of years hundreds of thousands of people have risked death to try to escape.

But “brainwashing” can go two ways. As the popularity of Yeonmi Park attests, Americans are willing to believe almost anything about North Korea. That is the result of the nation being subjected to disinformation and propaganda from the U.S. government and the guardians of empire about the country for many years.

Here is a point-by-point refutation of the false picture of North Korea’s history promoted by Gavin in this film, which she claims to have found through reading “everything she could get her hands on” on the internet about North Korea “in every language [and] every country.” Well, not everything, as we can see below.

Film version:
In 1910 the expanding Japanese empire colonized what was then a unified Korea. It was a very brutal colonization. Over the next 35 years the Korean culture and the Korean language were nearly eradicated. At the end of World War II when Japan surrendered, they lost the empire that they had been building. Part of the settlement deal was that Korea was split.

Fact:
In 1905, in the wake of a war over Korea between Japan and Russia, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated a peace treaty that included a secret protocol in which the U.S. approved Japanese control over Korea in return for Japanese recognition of America’s colonization of the Philippines (this egregious act is even taught in South Korean schools). Five years later, with U.S. approval, Japan formally colonized Korea (and yes, it was extremely brutal). Over the next 35 years, Japan created a colonial administration staffed in part by Korean collaborators with security provided by Koreans invited to join the Japanese military and constabulary. As Gavin carefully avoids mentioning, these collaborators, who helped the Japanese Army chase down Korean independence fighters in Manchuria and elsewhere, became the core of the South Korean military and police force created by the U.S. after 1945.

The Japanese surrender ceremony, 2 September, 1945 in Tokyo Bay aboard the United States Navy battleship USS Missouri.

Moreover, contrary to Gavin’s claim, there was no “settlement deal” between Japan and the U.S. after World War II. Instead, Japan surrendered unconditionally in the wake of the Nagasaki bomb, and the U.S. decided unilaterally to divide Japan’s colony at the 38th parallel and then directed Japan to surrender its military forces in Korea to the Soviet Red Army in the north and to the U.S. military in the south. 

Stalin, whose troops had entered Korea days before (as discussed with Truman at Potsdam), agreed to this arrangement after the fact. Some units of the Red Army had already crossed into the southern zone at that point. Those units withdrew to positions north of the 38th parallel and to Pyongyang. The U.S. military finally arrived in Seoul, Korea’s traditional capital, on September 8, 1945. As Liem and her fellow directors wrote, “By inferring that the division of Korea was a term of Japan’s surrender, which it was not, [Gavin’s] language erases the role of the U.S. in dividing Korea.”

Film version:
The idea was that Korea would shortly come back together and then have control over their own country. In the meantime, the south held a public election and U.S.-educated Syngman Rhee became the first president of what would become South Korea

Fact:
The plan for Korea was spelled out by President Franklin Roosevelt and his British and Chinese allies at their famous conference in 1943 and ratified by Stalin and Truman at Potsdam in 1945. “The idea” was for the allied powers to occupy the Korean peninsula until “in due course” it could be granted independence (Roosevelt “felt the trusteeship might last from 20 to 30 years,” the State Department summary of Potsdam states, while “Marshal Stalin said the shorter the trusteeship period the better.”)

But this did not sit well with the people of Korea. In the days after Japan’s surrender on August 15, 1945, Koreans throughout the peninsula declared a People’s Republic and established what were called “People’s Committees” in every province. These committees, north and south, included communists who had led the fierce resistance to Japanese colonialism as well as Christians and nationalists who wanted a united, independent Korea to emerge.

In the initial stage of their occupation, the Soviets recognized these committees as legitimate, and they became the core of the North Korea government the Red Army set up in Pyongyang. But U.S. leaders did not recognize the People’s Committees.  

Upon arriving in Korea, the U.S. military set up a U.S. Army Military Government (known as USAMGIK) and, believing the committees were communist fronts, outlawed the formation of a People’s Republic. It then brought in Syngman Rhee, a Princeton-educated Christian who for decades had been an advocate in the U.S. for Korean independence. Rhee was tapped to run the new administrative state for USAMGIK. Rhee hated Japan but reviled communists even more. He built a government of wealthy landlords, right-wing political figures, and former bureaucrats who had collaborated with Japanese colonial rule.

General Douglas A. MacArthur meets South Korean President Syngman Rhee.

Rhee’s election by a right-wing National Assembly took place in 1948 during a time of severe repression in the South. By 1946, many South Koreans were in open revolt against USAMGIK’s policies and Rhee’s rightist policies. In response, the U.S. and its Japanese-trained military forces launched a vicious counterinsurgency. This secret war fractured the country along ideological lines. According to a U.S. diplomat in Seoul, over 100,000 South Korean dissidents were killed long before the North Korean invasion of June 1950, many of them at the hands of Japanese-trained, Korean military, police, and anticommunist death squads. The counterinsurgency culminated in a brutal, US-directed assault on the island of Jeju, the only province to vote against a U.S.-designed plan to keep Korea divided.

Film version:
In the north, Stalin decided to look for a Soviet sympathizer as a temporary leader in what would become North Korea. And this is where Kim Il Sung comes in… When he was just eight years old, his family moved to Manchuria. Kim Il Sung joined the communist party in China and he eventually fought with the Soviet Union throughout World War II. Stalin heard about Kim Il Sung because of his reputation as a leader of several anti-Japanese guerilla groups. When Stalin brought him to Pyongyang, Kim Il Sung didn’t even speak good Korean… [He]  had the dream of reunifying the Koreas under communism. Expanding upon his guerilla contacts, he put together an army and eventually got the support of both Stalin and Mao.

Fact:
Stalin didn’t have to “look for” Il Sung Kim. The guerrilla fighter was widely known as a leader of the anti-Japanese resistance in Manchuria by the Japanese, which (under the future LDP Prime Minister of Japan, Nobusuke Kishi) sent units to hunt him down. As Bruce Cumings, the eminent historian of the Korean War, wrote in his famous two-volume history of the war’s origins, “Kim Il Sung was by no means a handpicked Soviet puppet, but maneuvered politically first to establish his leadership, then to isolate and best the communists who had remained in Korea during the colonial period, then to ally with Soviet-aligned Koreans for a time, then to create a powerful army under his own leadership (in February 1948) that melded Koreans who had fought together in Manchuria and China proper with those who remained at home.”

As Cumings wrote in an incisive article on Kim’s legacy in 2017, his legitimacy as a leader is well established. “The story of Kim Il-Sung’s resistance against the Japanese is surrounded by legend and exaggeration in the North, and general denial in the South. But he was recognizably a hero: He fought for decades in the harshest winter environment imaginable… Koreans made up the vast majority of guerrillas in Manchukuo [the Japanese colony in Manchuria], even though many of them were commanded by Chinese officers… Other Korean guerrillas led detachments too… and when they returned to Pyongyang in 1945 they formed the core of the new regime.”

In other words, these were not just innocuous “guerrilla contacts,” but the leaders of the resistance to Japan. And it was in that capacity as part of collective leadership that Kim got the support of Stalin and Mao to invade the South in June 1950 to dislodge the U.S.-backed Rhee regime, which he claimed did not represent the interests of most Koreans at the time. The rest is history, and the terrible war ended in an uneasy armistice in 1953 that Syngman Rhee refused to sign. No peace treaty was ever signed, leaving the two Koreas in a technical state of war today.

Visit journalist Tim Shorrock’s patreon page to read more and to support his investigative reporting work.

Filed Under: Film & Dramas, front_page_below_fold, Opinion Tagged With: "Beyond Utopia", "The Interview" film, Adrian Hong, Ann Wright, Beyond Utopia ~ PBS, Blaine Vess, Caleb Mission, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Christine Ahn, CSIS, DPRK, film review, Garry Kasparov, Hannah Song, HRF, Human Rights Foundation, Hye-Jung Park, Hyeonseo Lee, Kee Park, Kim Dae Jung, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Un, LINK, Madeleine Gavin, Medea Benjamin, Moon Jae In, NK News, North Korea, Pastor Seungeun Kim, PBS, PBS documentary, PBS Independent Lens, Sang Hak Park, Seth Rogen, South Korea, Stephen Costello, Sue Mi Terry, Syngman Rhee, Thor Halvorssen, Tim Shorrock, Yeonmi Park

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 6
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search Korean Quarterly

Trending Articles

  • To stop coups in South Korea, expand democracy
    If Yoon's impeachment opened extraordinary spaces of participation, now they...
  • Tracking the Asian American story
    "Rise: A Pop History of Asian American from the Nineties...

Events Calendar

WordPress › Error

Error establishing a Redis connection

Error while reading bytes from the server. [tcp://127.0.0.1:6379]

WordPress is unable to establish a connection to Redis. This means that the connection information in your wp-config.php file are incorrect, or that the Redis server is not reachable.

  • Is the correct Redis host and port set?
  • Is the Redis server running?

If you need help, please read the installation instructions.

To disable Redis, delete the object-cache.php file in the /wp-content/ directory.