Connect with us

News

Who is Yoon Suk Yeol, the man who sparked South Korea’s political crisis?

Published

on

Who is Yoon Suk Yeol, the man who sparked South Korea’s political crisis?

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Yoon Suk Yeol vowed that as South Korean president he would “rebuild this great nation” into one “that truly belongs to the people” when he delivered his inauguration speech in May 2022.

Instead, his presidency has been marked by mounting unpopularity and political dysfunction, culminating on Tuesday in his declaration of martial law in the country for the first time in more than four decades.

Yoon has faced serious challenges from the start of his term, entering power with a low approval rating and a parliament dominated by the opposition.

Advertisement

The 63-year-old former prosecutor, who played major roles in the successful prosecutions of former presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak, had never held a political role before announcing his presidential candidacy in 2021.

In 2019, he was appointed as prosecutor-general by his predecessor as president, liberal Moon Jae-in — but their relationship soured after Yoon launched an investigation into Moon’s justice minister, significantly raising Yoon’s public profile. After his resignation in March 2021, Yoon secured the presidential nomination of the conservative People Power party.

In the election the following year he eked out a victory against his liberal rival by just 0.73 per cent — the narrowest margin in any South Korean presidential contest.

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic party, speaks to the media at the national assembly © Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
Soldiers withdraw from the National Assembly in Seoul
South Korean soldiers withdraw from the national assembly © YONHAP/AFP/Getty Images

Yoon had an early taste of the challenge he would face from the opposition-controlled parliament when he struggled to gain approval for his preferred cabinet nominees, four of whom were forced to withdraw amid allegations of impropriety.

The difficulties continued as Yoon tried to pass legislation. As of January 2024, only 29 per cent of bills submitted to parliament by his government had been passed.

Yoon responded by wielding the presidential veto power to strike down opposition-sponsored legislation, vetoing more laws than any of his predecessors since the end of military rule in 1987.

Advertisement

Early in his term, he made a point of informally taking questions from journalists as he arrived at work. But his relationship with the media soured as he targeted critical reporting, with police and prosecutors repeatedly deployed against supposed publishers of “fake news”.

Another public relations setback came when Yoon announced a plan to relocate his office from the historic “Blue House” palace in central Seoul to a defence ministry complex. Yoon hoped that his more down-to-earth work setting would make him seem more in touch with the general public, but he faced an outcry over the cost of implementing the plan.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and his wife Kim Keon Hee salute during a ceremony to mark the 69th Memorial Day at the Seoul National Cemetery in Seoul
Yoon and his wife, Kim Keon Hee, at a memorial day service in Seoul this summer © Lee Jin-man/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

Other fights have come over critical policy areas, including education — Yoon was forced to drop a plan to make children start school a year earlier — and health, with doctors undertaking a long-running strike over pay and conditions.

His unpopularity was underscored by parliamentary elections this April, which delivered another large majority for the opposition Democratic party.

Opposition lawmakers have since been pushing for an investigation into Yoon and his wife over allegations, which Yoon has strongly denied, of improper dealings with a polling agency owner.

Yoon has sometimes found a warmer reception overseas — notably during a state visit to Washington in April last year, when he delighted President Joe Biden with a rendition of the 1970s song American Pie. Yoon also became the first South Korean president to attend a meeting of Nato and extended significant aid to Ukraine, as he deepened military and security collaboration with the US and Japan.

Advertisement

This drew criticism from the opposition, who accused him of antagonising China, the country’s most important trading partner.

In contrast with his predecessor Moon, who favoured dialogue with North Korea, Yoon has taken a harder line towards Pyongyang, which has responded with more missile tests during his rule.

As the parliamentary resistance has continued, Yoon has become increasingly frustrated — particularly over the opposition’s attempts to impeach prominent members of his administration and its refusal to pass his proposed annual budget. The opposition has countered with a smaller package, which Yoon said would mean unacceptable cuts to areas including disaster preparedness and child care support.

“The legislative dictatorship of the Democratic party . . . uses even the budget as a means of political struggle,” Yoon said on Tuesday in his speech announcing martial law.

Hours later he said he intended to lift the “emergency” measure after lawmakers voted it down in parliament — leaving his own position more uncertain amid one of the most serious constitutional crises in South Korea’s modern history.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending