What happened to South Korea's progressive movement?
When former President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Dec. 3, he probably had no idea how much mess he would create in the ensuing months. Martial law ended after six hours, rejected by the National Assembly. Millions protested on the streets, dividing the country into pro- and anti-Yoon camps, eventually leading to his impeachment in early April. Now, as South Korea races toward a sudden presidential election on June 3, the shadow of Yoon's self-inflicted constitutional crisis trails behind the candidates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
19 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Administration Withdraws from UNESCO Again, Only 2 Years after US Rejoined
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it will once again withdraw from the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, an expected move that has the U.S. further retreating from international organizations. The decision to pull U.S. funding and participation from UNESCO comes two years after the Biden administration rejoined following a controversial, five-year absence that began during President Donald Trump's first term. The White House cited similar concerns as it did in 2018, saying it believes U.S. involvement is not in its national interest and accusing the agency of promoting anti-Israel speech. The decision, which won't go into effect until December 2026, will deal a blow to an agency known for preserving cultural heritage through its UNESCO World Heritage Sites program — which recognizes significant landmarks for protection, ranging from the Taj Mahal to Egypt's pyramids of Giza and the Grand Canyon National Park. The agency also empowers education and science across the globe. It is the Trump administration's latest move to pull support for U.N. agencies under a larger campaign to reshape U.S. diplomacy. Under the 'America First' approach, the administration has pulled out of the U.N. World Health Organization and the top U.N. human rights body, while reassessing its funding for others. This has left the U.N., which is in the process of its own massive overhaul, reevaluating core programs and initiatives and what the international body would look like without support from the U.S. — its largest donor. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement that the withdrawal was linked to UNESCO's perceived agenda to 'advance divisive social and cultural causes.' She added that UNESCO's decision in 2011 'to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a Member State is highly problematic, contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.' UNESCO director general Audrey Azoulay said she 'deeply' regrets the U.S. decision but said it was expected and that the agency 'has prepared for it.' She also denied accusations of anti-Israel bias, saying it contradicts 'the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism.' Azoulay added that 'the reasons put forward by the United States of America are the same as seven years ago, even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism.' Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the U.N., celebrated the announcement, saying in a statement that it is a 'fitting response to the consistent misguided anti-Israel bias of UNESCO, an organization that has lost its way.' The Biden administration had rejoined UNESCO in 2023 after citing concerns that China was filling the gap left by the U.S. in UNESCO policymaking, notably in setting standards for artificial intelligence and technology education. 'Unilaterally withdrawing the United States from UNESCO is another assault by the Trump administration on international cooperation and U.S. global leadership,' Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said. 'This decision cedes more ground to U.S. competitors, especially China, who will take advantage of America's absence to further shape the international system in their favor.' The withdrawal, which was first reported by the New York Post, came after a review ordered by the Trump administration earlier this year. While the U.S. had previously provided a notable share of the agency's budget, UNESCO has diversified its funding sources in recent years as the U.S. contribution has decreased. Today, American assistance represents only 8% of the agency's total budget. Bruce hinted later Tuesday that further U.S. withdrawal from international organizations could be coming as a result of the ongoing review to ensure 'continued U.S. participation in international organizations will focus on advancing American interests with clarity and conviction.' Azoulay pledged that UNESCO will carry out its missions despite 'inevitably reduced resources.' The agency said that it is not considering any staff layoffs at this stage. 'UNESCO's purpose is to welcome all the nations of the world, and the United States of America is and always will be welcome,' she said. 'We will continue to work hand in hand with all our American partners in the private sector, academia and non-profit organizations, and will pursue our political dialogue with the U.S. administration and Congress.' The U.S. previously pulled out of UNESCO under the Reagan administration in 1984 because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance the interests of the Soviet Union. It rejoined in 2003 during George W. Bush's presidency. France, where UNESCO is based, stated in a press release that it regrets the U.S.'s decision to withdraw from the agency, which was founded in 1946 'to prevent conflicts through education, culture and tolerance.' 'France supports UNESCO, which backs several of its priorities at international level, particularly access to education for all, the protection of endangered heritage, the protection of our oceans, the responsible development of artificial intelligence and the fight against anti-Semitism and hate speech,' the French foreign ministry said.
Nikkei Asia
a day ago
- Nikkei Asia
US to leave UN cultural agency again, only 2 years after rejoining
(AP) -- The United States announced Tuesday it will again pull out of the U.N.'s educational, scientific and cultural agency because it believes that its involvement is not in the country's national interest, and that the agency promotes anti-Israel speech. This decision comes only two years after the United States rejoined UNESCO after leaving in 2018, during U.S. President Donald Trump's first administration. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the withdrawal was linked to UNESCO's perceived agenda to "advance divisive social and cultural causes." She added in a statement that UNESCO's decision "to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a Member State is highly problematic, contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization." The decision, first reported by the New York Post, will take effect at the end of December 2026. This will be the third time that the United States has left UNESCO, which is based in Paris, and the second time during a Trump administration. It last rejoined the agency in 2023, under the Biden administration. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay said she "deeply" regrets the U.S. decision but insisted that it was expected, and that the agency "has prepared for it." She also denied accusations of anti-Israel bias. "These claims ... contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism," she said. The Trump administration in 2017 announced that the U.S. would withdraw from UNESCO, citing anti-Israel bias. That decision took effect a year later. The U.S. and Israel stopped financing UNESCO after it voted to include Palestine as a member state in 2011. "The reasons put forward by the United States of America are the same as seven years ago, even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism," Azoulay added. The decision came as no surprise to UNESCO officials, who had anticipated such a move following the specific review ordered by the Trump administration earlier this year. They also expected that Trump would pull out again since the return of the U.S. in 2023 had been promoted by a political rival, former President Joe Biden. The U.S. withdrawal is likely to affect UNESCO because the U.S. provides a notable share of the agency's budget. But the organization should be able to cope. UNESCO has diversified its funding sources in recent years and the U.S. contribution has decreased, representing only 8% of the agency's total budget. Azoulay pledged that UNESCO will carry out its missions despite "inevitably reduced resources." The agency is not considering any staff layoffs at this stage. "UNESCO's purpose is to welcome all the nations of the world, and the United States of America is and always will be welcome," she said. "We will continue to work hand in hand with all our American partners in the private sector, academia and nonprofit organizations, and will pursue our political dialogue with the U.S. administration and Congress." The United States previously pulled out of UNESCO under the Reagan administration in 1984 because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance the interests of the Soviet Union. It rejoined in 2003 during George W. Bush's presidency.
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
EU's ‘Nuclear Option' of Moves against Trump Tariff Threat
BRUSSELS, July 21 (Reuters) – A growing number of European Union member states, including Germany, are considering using wide-ranging 'anti-coercion' measures targeting U.S. services if the EU cannot reach a trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump, EU diplomats say. Here are details of the bloc's Anti-Coercion Instrument, which took effect at the end of 2023 and hitherto has never been used, as it is seen by many as a 'nuclear option' that is ideally meant as a deterrent. POSSIBLE MEASURES The ACI allows the 27-nation EU to retaliate against third countries that put economic pressure on member countries to change their policies, and offers far wider scope for action than just counter-tariffs on U.S. exports. The ACI has a 10-point list of possible measures against Trump's threat of a 30% tariff on EU imports by August 1. As well as tariffs on goods, the ACI tools include curbs on imports or exports of goods such as through quotas or licenses. For public tenders in the bloc, worth some 2 trillion euros ($2.3 trillion) per year, there are two possibilities. Bids, such as for construction or defense procurement, could be excluded if U.S. goods or services make up more than 50% of the potential contract. Alternatively, a penalty score adjustment could be attached to U.S. bids. The ACI could also lead to measures to affect services in which the U.S. has a trade surplus with the EU, including from digital services providers Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix or Uber. Measures could also curb foreign direct investment from the United States, which is the world's largest investor in the EU. Further measures could include restrictions on protection of intellectual property rights, on access to financial services markets and on the ability to sell chemicals or food in the EU. The EU is supposed to select measures that are likely to be most effective to stop the coercive behavior of a third country and potentially to repair injury. HOW DOES THE EU INVOKE THE ACI? The ACI was proposed in 2021 as a response to EU member criticism that the first Trump administration and China had used trade as a political tool. China had targeted Lithuania, according to Lithuanian officials, after it allowed Taiwan to set up a de facto embassy in Vilnius. The law gives the European Commission up to four months to examine possible cases of coercion. If it finds a foreign country's measures constitute coercion, it puts this to EU members, which have another eight to 10 weeks to confirm the finding. To confirm, a qualified majority of EU members is required – a higher bar to hurdle than for applying retaliatory tariffs. The Commission would normally then consult with the foreign country in an effort to stop the coercion. If that fails, then within six months it can adopt EU response measures, again subject to a vote by EU members. These should enter force within three months. The whole process could take a year, but could be sped up.
