In a revealing commentary, Luke de Pulford, Executive Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), has highlighted what he sees as an “extremely dangerous situation” in South Korea. South Korea’s Parliament votes to revoke the martial law, where political unrest has reached a critical point. De Pulford, who leads a coalition of over 240 MPs from 27 national legislatures and the European Parliament, specifically points to the fact that Western countries seem more concerned about South Korea’s potential shift towards China than the far more pressing issue of President Yoon Suk Yeol declaring martial law and sending troops into the National Assembly in an attempt to block his impeachment. To de Pulford, this reaction exposes a troubling double standard in Western foreign policy, whereby the supposed commitment to democratic “values” is sacrificed when Western geopolitical interests are at stake. Rather than condemning the authoritarian actions of President Yoon, the West seems more worried about South Korea embracing normalised relations with China.
De Pulford’s remarks are part of a wider pattern of behaviour, reflected also in the West’s handling of the situation in Gaza, where political expediency takes precedence over principles. In South Korea, the West appears willing to overlook the undemocratic measures taken by Yoon, including a potential military coup, simply because they are more concerned about the possibility that Yoon’s successor might embrace the One China principle, which is supported by almost every country.
The situation in South Korea escalated dramatically over the past 48 hours. The opposition party, preparing to impeach President Yoon, was met with a bold and unexpected move from the president, who declared martial law to prevent the impeachment process. In an unprecedented step, Yoon deployed armed forces to block opposition lawmakers from entering parliament, turning the situation into a near-coup. Soldiers barricaded the National Assembly, preventing MPs from accessing the chamber, which provoked widespread outrage and led to mass protests across the country. Many viewed Yoon’s actions as an attempt to hold on to power by any means necessary.
In response, the opposition called for an emergency parliamentary vote to revoke the martial law. Within hours, 190 out of the 300 lawmakers voted to lift the decree, effectively overturning Yoon’s decision. However, this is not the end of the story. Although the martial law may be temporarily lifted, the political fallout from Yoon’s actions is likely to lead to his impeachment, as public anger continues to mount and even members of his own party have begun to criticise his increasingly authoritarian tactics.
This crisis in South Korea presents a dilemma for the West. On the one hand, there is the immediate concern about Yoon’s increasingly unpopular and erratic rule, which could lead to a full-blown dictatorship. On the other hand, Western geopolitical interests in containing China seem to outweigh concerns about the state of democracy in South Korea. The situation forces us to question the West’s true commitment to democratic values when they clash with strategic priorities. Would Western nations prefer to see South Korea under an unstable, militarised regime led by an increasingly isolated president, rather than risk greater Chinese influence in the region?
For now, South Korea’s parliament has rejected Yoon’s martial law decree, but the president’s future remains uncertain. As the country struggles to navigate the aftermath of this political crisis, the international community—especially Western powers—will have to confront the uncomfortable reality that their support for democracy in South Korea may have limits when it conflicts with their broader geopolitical interests.
