Kenji Yoshida 
Yoon Sang-hyun during an interview with JAPAN Forward (©Kenji Yoshida)
Yoon Sang-hyun, a senior lawmaker from the ruling People Power Party, says South Korea is at its most precarious moment in decades.
On January 26, President Yoon Suk-yeol was formally indicted on charges of orchestrating an insurrection for his brief December 3 martial law declaration. If convicted, he could face life imprisonment or even the death penalty under local law.
The now-detained president also awaits a Constitutional Court ruling that will ultimately determine his political fate. If at least six of the eight justices uphold the impeachment motion, he will be removed from office permanently.
In an exclusive interview with JAPAN Forward, lawmaker Yoon offered his views on South Korea's escalating political turmoil. He also warned of what he sees as the erosion of democratic norms and his fight to resuscitate the dwindling rule of law in his country.
Having studied at Georgetown and George Washington University and taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Yoon is a seasoned insider of Washington's political circles.
Do you think President Yoon's martial law decree was justified?
Article 77 of the South Korean Constitution outlines the conditions for invoking martial law: wartime, armed conflict, or similar national emergency. While opinions vary among lawmakers and the public on whether December 3 met those criteria, President Yoon maintains that the nation was facing a national emergency. What's important to recognize is that there is a clear perception gap between the president and that of the general public.
So why did the president think we are in a national emergency? First, the main opposition Democratic Party has spent the past two and a half years paralyzing the country's legislative and judicial functions by weaponizing impeachment procedures. Including Yoon's parliamentary impeachment, the Democratic Party and its satellite party — commanding a majority in the National Assembly — have filed 29 impeachment motions so far against senior state officials and prosecutors.
Hacking Funds
Second, there's the budget standoff. In 2024, our national budget stood at ₩677.4 trillion KRW (approximately $509.7 billion USD). Yet, the Democratic Party one-sidedly slashed more than ₩4 trillion ($2.7 billion) without consulting the ruling party. Budgets like special activities funds for the executive branch, prosecutors, and police were cut entirely. Contrastingly, former President Moon Jae In had acquired more than ₩9 billion (about $6.2 million) for similar expenses. More critically, funds for the Yoon administration's flagship initiatives, including nuclear power development, gas reserve exploration, and Small Modular Reactors, were severely hacked.
South Korea may appear like a well-oiled machine from the outside, but beneath it, the gears are grinding hard. President Yoon sought to directly inform the public of this situation by invoking emergency martial law.
Your remarks at the December 11 parliamentary plenary session seemed like a turning point in rallying support for the president. What motivated you to take the stand?
After the December 3 martial law declaration, the Democratic Party and anti-Yoon opponents wasted no time in labeling it an insurrection and pushing for the president's impeachment. But let's examine Articles 87 and 91 of the Criminal Code. They define an insurrectionist as someone who incites a riot with the intent to usurp national territory or subvert the Constitution or laws.
Common sense tells us that a sitting president launching a riot to undermine the very Constitution he swore to uphold is absurd. Yet, the opposition parties have relentlessly forced this narrative, turning it into a meticulous propaganda machine. Unfortunately, much of the media and many politicians have uncritically embraced it.
When the ruling People Power Party was in crisis, we invited then-Prosecutor General Yoon Suk-yeol to help resuscitate our party. With his leadership, conservatives narrowly won the competitive 2022 presidential election. Basic human decency demands that we at least listen to what the President has to say. However, many lawmakers from my party were overwhelmed by the Democratic Party-led public opinion campaign and were too intimidated to fight back.
The parliamentary questioning and speech I delivered on December 11 were my way of conveying President Yoon's position. I specifically urged then-Prime Minister Han Duk-soo and other cabinet ministers to provide a full account of the president's reasoning and state of mind during his martial law declaration.
There are increasing concerns over the questionable actions of the courts and investigators. What are your thoughts?
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), which led the investigation into President Yoon, lacks the jurisdiction to handle insurrection cases. Nevertheless, the agency pressed forward and sought arrest warrants in a noticeably illicit manner. In turn, the Seoul Western District Court unlawfully granted their wishes.
On January 26, the prosecution formally indicted Yoon on charges of spearheading an insurrection. Here again, the prosecutors are committing another injustice. The prosecution office is not merely a prosecutorial agency but one with a responsibility to prevent human rights violations. Instead of correcting the wrongful arrest by the CIO, they doubled down and extended President Yoon's detention.
The Brink of Collapse
Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Act states, "The impeachment trial may be suspended if there is a simultaneous criminal trial pending on the same case." The intent behind this provision is to avoid conducting two trials for the same case at the same time. With roughly two months remaining until the Constitutional Court ruling, it's not too late to proceed with the criminal trial once a court decision has been reached.
To that end, the prosecution should immediately release President Yoon to ensure he can mount a full defense at his impeachment trial. But they aren't. Why? At the end of the day, they know that if they don't conform to what the Democrats want, they'll end up being impeached like many others before them.
So we're not just fighting for the president's survival but for the survival of our country's constitutional order. I emphasize that South Korea's rule of law is on the brink of collapse.
Can President Yoon expect a fair trial from the Constitutional Court?
Out of the eight justices of the current Constitutional Court, Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mison, and Chung Kyesun are members of what's known as the Woori Law Research Group. Approximately 150 of 3000 judges in South Korea are said to belong to this group, making up about 5% of the total number. It is striking that three justices of the Constitutional Court come from this 5%. In short, the Woori Law Research Group consists of judges with notably leftist political views and tendencies.
Aside from this, there are reasons to suspect that the Constitutional Court will not render a just decision in Yoon's impeachment case.
A Clear Violation
First and foremost, fairness should take precedence over speed in any trial. Take the Watergate case in the United States, for instance. Special prosecutor Archibald Cox led the investigation for over two years before Richard Nixon resigned just before a likely impeachment. In contrast, the Constitutional Court is bypassing established procedures and attempting to rush through the judgment against President Yoon.
(Editor's note: While the court has up to 180 days for a presidential impeachment trial, it took 63 days for the Court to decide on the impeachment of former President Roh Moo-hyun and 91 days for former President Park Geun-hye. Legal experts widely predict Yoon's ruling will be delivered in early to mid-April)
There are numerous other questionable actions by the court, but let's focus on two. Article 32 of the Constitutional Court Act explicitly states that the Court cannot request the transfer of relevant records for cases under trial or investigation. The Court disregarded this provision and did it anyway. Also, Article 40 of the same Act stipulates that the Criminal Procedure Act must be applied in impeachment proceedings. But the Court is in clear violation of this rule by setting trial dates arbitrarily.
You recently visited Washington to attend President Trump's inauguration. Can you share what you did there?
During my recent trip to Washington in January, I met several influential figures, including Fred Fleitz, the vice chair of the America First Policy Institute. Fred and others praised President Yoon, especially for his efforts to bolster the South Korea-US alliance. He also mentioned that President Trump is keen to meet with Yoon and wished for an amicable resolution to the situation in South Korea.
I also met with former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and several Republican lawmakers, all of whom strongly supported the Yoon administration's efforts to reinforce and solidify Seoul's trilateral partnership with Washington and Tokyo. One Republican congressman was especially shocked, questioning how investigators could possibly apprehend and detain a sitting president. Our discussions also highlighted the security risks of a potential Democratic Party takeover of the executive branch.
How will Trump's second term influence South Korea's security policies?
As North Korea's nuclear and missile threats intensify, the key question is how much US extended deterrence can be offered. My consistent argument is that the best way for the US to provide extended deterrence to South Korea is by permanently stationing a nuclear-capable strategic submarine. The submarine, however, should be positioned outside but near our territorial waters. This approach would also honor the 1991 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
In April 2023, President Yoon reached the Washington Declaration with the Joe Biden administration, establishing the Nuclear Consultative Group. Through this agreement, Washington committed to regularly deploying its strategic nuclear assets to South Korea. This alone is a tremendous achievement.
The Threat of the North
At the same time, it's important to consider the sophistication of North Korea's nuclear and missile capabilities. In 2023, North Korea claimed to have successfully launched the Hwasong-18 ICBM, which has a range of up to 15,000 kilometers when fired at a normal trajectory. In other words, it could potentially reach the mainland US. The key question now is whether North Korea possesses reentry technology. I believe the regime will acquire this capability within four years of the Donald Trump administration.
If it comes to this, Washington will likely shift away from the nuclear disarmament phase and instead focus on freezing North Korea's further nuclear development. President Trump may, for instance, grant Pyongyang de facto nuclear power status. In exchange for easing sanctions and potentially establishing liaison offices in both capitals, Trump could pressure the North to halt its nuclear and missile advancements. This would, of course, be a nightmare scenario for the South.
What are South Korea's options?
One option is for South Korea to go nuclear on a strictly conditional basis. What I mean by that is if North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons, we will do the same simultaneously.
Now, is this a realistic plan? I believe so. And I'm confident I can persuade the Trump administration. In 2024, I met with Elbridge Colby, now the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and he was open to the idea of nuclearizing South Korea as a deterrent to China. Therefore, this option is not entirely out of reach.
RELATED:
- Is Yoon Suk-yeol Confronting a Left-Wing 'Gestapo'?
- INTERVIEW | South Korean Legal Expert Breaks Down President Yoon's Arrest
- Turmoil in South Korea Puts People at Disadvantage, Security at Risk
Author: Kenji Yoshida
