Asia
Yoon’s impeachment delay: Legal rigour or political deadlock?
In South Korea, anticipation continues to build each week regarding the impeachment trial of Yoon Suk Yeol. Key factors contributing to the delay in finalizing the case include the intricate political and legal landscape, the Constitutional Court’s meticulous decision-making process, and profound societal polarization.
Following his declaration of short-lived martial law on December 3, 2024, Yoon was suspended from office by the National Assembly on December 14, 2024. He was subsequently detained at his residence before being imprisoned on January 15, 2025. This incident, widely viewed as a grave threat to South Korea’s democratic institutions, triggered the initiation of impeachment proceedings. However, the process requires a final ruling from the Constitutional Court, which has yet to be delivered.
A primary reason for the delay is the Constitutional Court’s comprehensive review. The court is meticulously assessing the ‘sedition’ accusations against Yoon concerning his martial law declaration and determining whether he violated his constitutional duties. The court has a 180-day window to render its decision, a period utilized for gathering evidence, hearing witness testimony, and conducting detailed analyses of legal arguments. Yoon’s defense contends that the martial law declaration was a legitimate measure to ‘combat anti-state elements’ and was not intended to establish full military rule. Conversely, the opposition and numerous legal experts assert that this action violated the constitution and constitutes sedition. The court is adopting a cautious approach, prioritizing thoroughness over speed in resolving these conflicting claims.
A second factor relates to the court’s current composition. Typically comprising nine judges, the Constitutional Court is currently operating with eight members. A ruling requires the concurrence of at least six judges. This composition potentially complicates consensus-building and could prolong the deliberation process. Furthermore, Yoon’s case is poised to set a significant precedent, being the first instance in South Korean history where a head of state faces both impeachment and sedition charges simultaneously. This unique situation compels the court to proceed with heightened caution.
Societal polarization is also influencing the proceedings. Significant tension exists between Yoon’s supporters and opponents, with both factions attempting to influence the court through public demonstrations. For instance, Yoon’s supporters demand his release, while his opponents advocate for his prompt removal from office. This societal pressure potentially complicates the court’s ability to maintain impartiality and could contribute to delays in the judgment.
Whether Yoon Suk Yeol committed a constitutional offence remains a central question before South Korea’s Constitutional Court. This question lacks a definitive legal and political answer as the court has not yet rendered its final judgment. However, examining the National Assembly’s indictment, which initiated the impeachment, and the available information regarding Yoon’s actions can help clarify the matter.
Yoon’s actions and the allegation of constitutional offence
On December 3, 2024, Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, citing the need to combat North Korean-backed ‘anti-state elements’. This declaration was unanimously rescinded by the National Assembly within hours, prompting Yoon to retract his order. According to the South Korean Constitution (Article 77), martial law may only be declared during war, armed conflict, or similar national emergencies threatening national security, and it remains subject to National Assembly oversight. Yoon’s declaration was widely deemed unconstitutional because it lacked concrete evidence of war or an immediate threat justifying such an extreme measure.
Furthermore, the deployment of military troops to the National Assembly building during the brief martial law period, along with attempts to curtail media and political activities, are viewed as violations of fundamental constitutional rights, such as freedom of expression and the legislature’s power. Article 7 of the Constitution underscores that public officials are accountable to the populace and must not abuse their authority. The opposition contends that Yoon’s actions amount to ‘rebellion’ (Article 87) or an attempt to ‘suspend the constitution,’ both considered grave constitutional offences.
Contents of the indictment
- Violation of the Constitution: The indictment claims the martial law declaration lacked legal basis and threatened the constitutional order. It alleges Yoon attempted to establish unilateral rule by circumventing parliamentary authority.
- Sedition Offence: It asserts that Yoon targeted democratic institutions, particularly the National Assembly, using military force, actions fitting the definition of ‘internal rebellion.’ This offence carries severe penalties under the South Korean Penal Code (Article 87).
- Abuse of Authority: Yoon’s failure to provide concrete evidence justifying martial law based on ‘anti-state elements’ is presented as proof of arbitrary use of power.
- Attack on Democratic Processes: Actions taken to obstruct parliamentary functions and suppress media freedom are cited as violations of constitutional rights.
Yoon and his legal team argue the martial law declaration was not a constitutional offence but an ‘extraordinary measure’ necessary for protecting national security. Yoon maintains he did not institute full military rule, but merely issued a warning against ‘internal threats’. Furthermore, the swift rescission of martial law is presented as evidence that he lacked intent to suspend the constitution entirely.
Impeachment precedents in South Korean politics
Impeachment trials for heads of state are infrequent but significant milestones in South Korea’s democratic history. Prior to Yoon Suk Yeol’s 2024 impeachment proceedings, two previous attempts offer relevant context: Roh Moo-hyun (2004) and Park Geun-hye (2016-2017). These cases may serve as precedents for Yoon’s situation regarding both procedural aspects and potential outcomes.
The 2004 impeachment attempt against Roh Moo-hyun, a prominent Democratic leader, provides a key precedent.
Roh Moo-hyun faced impeachment after openly expressing support for his Uri Party (Open Party) ahead of the 2004 general elections, drawing criticism from the opposition for violating presidential impartiality. He was accused of violating election laws and abusing his authority. The National Assembly voted 191 to 2 to impeach him. The case then went before the Constitutional Court. The court acknowledged that Roh’s actions constituted constitutional violations but ruled they were not ‘grave’ enough to justify removal from office. Roh enjoyed significant public support at the time, and street protests exerted pressure in his favor. The Constitutional Court ultimately rejected the impeachment in a 6-3 decision, and Roh was reinstated. This ruling established a precedent, demonstrating the high threshold required for a ‘grave constitutional violation’ warranting impeachment. Consequently, Roh’s case remains the sole instance in South Korea where an impeached head of state was returned to office. Compared to Yoon’s situation, Roh’s case involved less severe charges, lacking accusations related to military force deployment or ‘sedition’.
A more recent comparison involves the 2016-2017 impeachment of Park Geun-hye.
Park was impeached by the National Assembly on December 9, 2016, and subsequently removed from office by a Constitutional Court ruling on March 10, 2017. Park faced accusations of allowing her close confidante, Choi Soon-sil, to illicitly interfere in state affairs, sharing confidential documents, accepting bribes, and abusing presidential authority. The scandal centered on allegations that Choi solicited millions of dollars from major corporations and that Park was complicit in this corruption network. The National Assembly approved the impeachment motion by a vote of 234 to 56. The Constitutional Court reviewed the case and found that Park had ‘systematically and continuously’ violated her constitutional duties. While Park’s defense maintained her relationship with Choi was purely personal and did not influence state affairs, the court determined that substantial evidence and witness testimony indicated otherwise. Millions participated in street protests throughout the proceedings. The Constitutional Court unanimously (8-0) upheld Park’s impeachment. Subsequently, Park faced a criminal investigation and was sentenced in 2018 to 24 years in prison for offences including bribery and abuse of power.
While Roh’s impeachment centered on political violations, the cases against Park and Yoon involve arguably more severe charges. However, Yoon’s declaration of martial law, involving the potential use of military force against democratic institutions, is widely perceived as representing an even graver constitutional crisis than Park’s scandal.
In conclusion, the final resolution of Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment case remains pending due to intricate legal questions, the Constitutional Court’s deliberate approach, and complex socio-political dynamics. While the Constitutional Court’s judgment is anticipated in the near future, possibly within days or weeks, a precise timeline cannot be predicted. This ongoing uncertainty contributes significantly to the political instability currently facing South Korea.
Asia
Pentagon plans covert spy ring for economic war on China, report says
The US Department of War (Pentagon) is reportedly planning to establish an extensive network of deep-cover agents to wage economic warfare against China and other adversaries of the US.
According to a report by The Washington Post citing six sources familiar with the initiative, the plan has not yet been put into effect. The newspaper reported that the initiative remains at the planning stage. The Pentagon, however, denies that any such initiative exists.
The report said the operatives would pose as entrepreneurs or private sector employees while concealing their ties to the US government. The network’s mission would be to gather economic intelligence and counter China.
The programme is led by Tom Rakusa, who spent 39 years at the CIA. Rakusa serves as a senior adviser to Deputy Secretary of Defence Steve Feinberg.
The proposed spy network is seen as part of a broader policy by the Donald Trump administration to sharpen economic competition with other countries.
The US is already resorting to tariffs, export controls, and investment in strategic sectors, alongside expanding its economic intelligence gathering.
According to The Washington Post, the new initiative demonstrates the Pentagon’s growing influence under the Trump administration. The department is currently seeking a record budget of $1.5 trillion.
Trade war flares up again with Trump’s return to the White House
The trade friction between the US and China flared up again following Donald Trump’s return to the White House. In April 2025, Washington raised tariffs on Chinese goods to as much as 145%, and Beijing retaliated with tariffs of up to 125%.
In May, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described China as the primary geopolitical challenge facing Washington. Rubio said that to avoid war, the two sides needed to manage their conflict of interests.
In July, Chinese expert Zheng Yongnian did not simply warn that underestimating the US could prove to be a “fatal mistake”; he stated it explicitly.
According to Zheng’s assessment, the US maintains its primacy through the role of the dollar, its military superiority, and its technological advantages.
Even so, the two sides agreed in June to declare a truce and lower tariffs. In autumn 2026, the US and China extended their trade truce until 10 January 2027.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the extension would give the parties more time to discuss economic issues.
Trade deals do not eliminate the strategic contradictions between the two countries. Financial Times columnist Rana Foroohar likened the race between the two nations for commercial, technological, and geopolitical influence to the 19th-century “Great Game” between the Russian and British empires.
Foroohar cited China’s standing in shipbuilding and commercial maritime transport, as well as its expanding footprint in overseas ports, among its key advantages.
Asia
Japan plans curbs on short-term home sales to cool urban prices
Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) plans to restrict short-term property trading to rein in surging home prices in major urban centres, particularly Tokyo.
Led by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, the party aims to make support for working households a core priority ahead of local elections scheduled for April next year.
The LDP’s research commission on housing and land policy met on Wednesday to discuss the issue.
According to a report by the Nikkei Asia newspaper, Commission Chair and LDP lawmaker Midori Matsushima said at the opening of the meeting: “Prices of newly built condominiums across Tokyo’s 23 wards have doubled over the past decade. We must work on measures ensuring that people who wish to live in these homes can actually afford to buy them.”
Homeownership in the capital has become virtually unattainable for broad segments of the population. According to data from the Real Estate Economic Institute, the average sale price of a newly built condominium in Tokyo’s 23 wards rose %18.5 in fiscal 2025 compared with the previous year, reaching 137.84 million yen (around $872,000).
Meanwhile, statistics from the Ministry of Labour show that the average annual income of a full-time worker in the capital remained at 6.78 million yen in fiscal 2025. This widening gap between incomes and residential property prices is directly shaping political priorities.
During its campaign for the House of Representatives election in February, the LDP pledged to curb speculative transactions across metropolitan Tokyo and other regions. Earlier this month, a party project team focused on policies concerning foreign nationals also submitted a recommendation urging the government to introduce immediate tax measures against rising home prices.
Under current legislation, profits realized from properties sold within five years of acquisition are classified as “short-term capital gains”. These returns face a tax rate approaching %40, including income tax and local inhabitant tax.
Although this rate is twice the approximately %20 levied as “long-term capital gains” tax on properties held for more than five years, several party members argue it remains insufficient to deter speculation. Calls to tighten the framework may be considered as part of the annual tax reform package to be drafted in December alongside the LDP’s coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party.
The ruling bloc wants to present concrete housing pledges to voters heading to the polls in April across numerous urban centres, including 22 of Tokyo’s wards where local assembly terms expire.
“We need to support families with children, who are typically at the stage of purchasing a home,” a senior LDP official said.
Opposition parties are also preparing alternative proposals that target not only prospective homebuyers, but also residents forced into the rental market by high property prices and now affected by escalating rents.
Tax steps take precedence over limits on foreign buyers
Several countries seeking answers to housing affordability pressures have imposed direct restrictions on foreign purchasers. In South Korea, real estate policies played a major part in the declining public approval ratings of President Lee Jae Myung.
In August 2025, authorities in Seoul introduced an approval requirement for foreign nationals buying homes in the capital and adjacent areas, while also mandating that buyers reside in the properties for at least two years.
Canada and Australia have enacted temporary bans on foreign residential purchases, while Singapore levies a %60 additional stamp duty on foreign buyers.
The role of overseas investors in Japan’s property market also drew debate during the February election. However, restrictions aimed directly at foreign nationals are viewed as potentially conflicting with international trade and services agreements.
Consequently, rather than imposing restrictions based on the nationality of buyers, the government is discussing tax measures aimed at speculative real estate deals, such as rapid resales.
Fears that sharp market measures could shake regional banks
Concerns have also surfaced that aggressive steps to force down prices could harm the wider national economy.
A senior LDP tax official cautioned that a steep drop in land prices could weaken local financial institutions, warning: “We must consider the impact on regional banks.”
The real estate sector accounts for roughly %18 of total lending by Japanese banks. This proportion sits well above the %10 level recorded during Japan’s bubble economy of the mid-to-late 1980s.
At certain regional banks, property lending accounts for nearly half of total loan portfolios.
According to March 2025 data from the Financial Services Agency, approximately one-quarter of all loans extended by regional banks to the real estate sector are concentrated directly in Tokyo’s five central wards.
Buoyant asset valuations, supported in part by rising stock indices, have underpinned strong public approval for the Takaichi administration. Observers note that property interventions designed to cool the market could drag down equity prices and weaken the government’s standing.
A senior official on the LDP research commission stressed that decision-makers must act with caution regarding the scope and timing of any measures intended to bring price increases under control.
Asia
South Korea plans $120B spend on eight US nuclear power plants
South Korea will spend $120 billion to construct eight nuclear power plants in the US under an agreement that provides for $350 billion in investments in exchange for lower tariffs.
The South Korean government also announced that Seoul and Washington will begin examining a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Alaska comprising a large-scale pipeline to transport natural gas from the north of the state to the south, alongside the construction of an LNG terminal for exports overseas.
Seoul stated that a decision regarding the LNG project will be made following a commercial feasibility study. However, US President Donald Trump said that South Korea would invest $54 billion in the project, pointing to an apparent lack of full coordination between the two sides on the matter.
Trade and Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan said in a statement: “This announcement opens a new horizon of cooperation where the two countries join forces to develop joint commercial ventures in strategic areas directly linked to economic security and future sectors such as artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and LNG.”
“We will adhere to the principle of prioritising national interests and investing solely in commercially viable projects,” Kim said.
Speaking at the White House, Trump characterised South Korea’s plans as “one of the largest energy infrastructure investments in American history”.
The announcement followed a meeting between Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung roughly one year ago at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting held in South Korea, where they agreed on the creation of a $350 billion investment fund.
Under that agreement, $150 billion was allocated to the shipbuilding sector and $200 billion to other sectors. In return, the US announced it would reduce tariffs imposed on goods imported from South Korea from 25% to 15%.
Under the nuclear power project, South Korea’s state-controlled utility will build two plants in the US, while Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse Electric will construct six plants.
According to the South Korean government, this will mark the first instance in which a foreign country builds its own nuclear power plants in the US.
South Korean firms are also evaluating the possibility of acquiring a stake in Westinghouse as part of negotiations over sharing profits generated by the project.
South Korea additionally announced that it will build a $22.3 billion natural gas-fired power plant in Texas with a capacity of 6,472 megawatts.
The facility will be designed to supply electricity directly to nearby data centres. The project’s first phase is targeted to begin commercial operations in 2029, with full-capacity operations slated for 2032.
Seoul also disclosed that it had agreed to allow the US to receive 50% of the profits generated by the projects until South Korea recoups all of its investments.
After South Korea fully recovers its total investment amount, 90% of the profits will go to the US.
-
Europe2 weeks agoBerlin Left Party backs Israel’s right to exist for coalition pact
-
America2 weeks agoTrump weighs presidential memorandum to cut surging US diesel prices
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEU and China reach preliminary deal to curb hybrid car imports
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSWP urges backing for Gulf trade routes bypassing Strait of Hormuz
-
Europe1 week agoLSE study finds post-bailout Greece turned into a cafe economy
-
America2 weeks agoEnergy firms enlist ex-US officials to tap Venezuelan oil
-
America2 weeks agoThiel targets Pope and Obama over AI in new ‘Antichrist’ lectures
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman exports pivot to Eastern Europe amid drops in US and China
