Muftasoft TM

By : Khawar Nehal Date : 5 December 2024

There was a martial law in South Korea in the news today.

This article is for the next generation who is not aware of terms like martial law.

Martial Law refers to the imposition of direct military control over civilian functions during periods of crisis or instability. Historically, it has been enacted in situations where governments struggle to maintain control, often due to war, civil unrest, or rebellion. Under martial law, normal civil liberties may be suspended, and the military takes over law enforcement, often imposing curfews, restrictions on movement, and even trials by military courts.

For today's generation, the term “martial law” might seem unfamiliar or abstract due to its rare and extreme nature in modern societies, especially in Western democracies. However, martial law still appears in contexts where governments need to address threats quickly, such as in cases of natural disasters, civil unrest, or political upheaval.

• Philippines (1972): Under President Ferdinand Marcos, martial law was declared in the Philippines, allowing for military control and the suppression of dissent. It led to widespread human rights abuses, including arrests of political opponents and restrictions on free speech.
• United States (Civil War): During the American Civil War, martial law was declared in certain parts of the country, most notably in Maryland and Kentucky, where tensions were high and the government wanted to prevent rebellion.

• Egypt (2011): After the Arab Spring and the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak, the military imposed martial law to maintain control during a time of political transition.
• Thailand: Thailand has had periodic impositions of martial law, especially following political turmoil, with the military stepping in to prevent protests or civil unrest from spiraling out of control.

While martial law isn't as common today in many developed countries, the concept remains important in understanding how governments may use military power to suppress unrest or maintain order during emergencies. The idea of martial law remains relevant in discussions of government powers, civil liberties, and the balance of democracy and security.

For the current generation, the idea may seem distant, but it’s important to understand that martial law has shaped global histories, and it's still used in certain parts of the world to manage national crises.

A few days ago, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in response to escalating tensions with the opposition and accusations of collusion with North Korea. He justified the measure as necessary to protect South Korea's democratic system and counter what he called “anti-state forces” disrupting governance. The martial law decree restricted political activities, media, and demonstrations while enabling warrantless arrests. It also ordered medical personnel to return to work amid ongoing strikes. *Reuters* *Washington Examiner*.

The declaration, the first since 1980, led to significant political backlash. Opposition leaders accused President Yoon of using martial law as a tool to suppress dissent and consolidate power. Lawmakers in the National Assembly convened to void the declaration, but the Ministry of Defense initially resisted, maintaining the order would stay in effect until officially lifted by the president. *Reuters* *Washington Examiner*.

This event has heightened political tensions in South Korea and drawn international attention to its democratic stability.

There are heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula due to increased military activities and aggressive rhetoric from North Korea. Recently, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un urged his military to prepare for potential war, citing growing threats from the United States and its allies, including South Korea and Japan. He has described these alliances as creating an “Asian NATO,” intensifying regional tensions. North Korea has also pledged to exponentially expand its nuclear capabilities, positioning itself as a critical player in global power struggles. *Deutsche Welle* *CNA* *Philstar*.

In response, South Korea has strengthened its defense measures, including joint military exercises with the U.S. and Japan. Relations between the Koreas have hit a low point, with North Korea declaring South Korea a hostile state. Additionally, the broader geopolitical climate, including North Korea's reported military support for Russia in Ukraine, has exacerbated concerns about stability in the region. *Deutsche Welle* *CNA*.

While fears of a global conflict are speculative, these developments highlight the fragility of peace on the peninsula and the significant military posturing from both sides.

Proxy wars involving NATO or OECD-aligned countries are often linked to broader geopolitical struggles where direct conflict is avoided but influence is exerted through support for local factions. These conflicts frequently involve arms, funding, or political backing to achieve strategic objectives. Below are key regions and countries often regarded as proxy war theaters for NATO or its member states:

• Ukraine
  1. Conflict: The ongoing war since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion in 2022.
  2. Involvement: NATO countries, particularly the U.S., provide significant military aid and training to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression.
  • CNA*
  • Philstar*.
  1. Opposition: Russia, with indirect support from nations like Belarus and alleged military cooperation from Iran and North Korea.

• Syria
  1. Conflict: A multifaceted civil war since 2011.
  2. Involvement: NATO countries, such as the U.S., Turkey, and others, have supported different factions, including Kurdish forces and anti-Assad groups, while Russia and Iran back the Assad regime.
  3. Strategic Goals: Counter-terrorism, influence over energy routes, and regional stability.

• Libya
  1. Conflict: Post-Gaddafi civil strife, particularly after 2014.
  2. Involvement: NATO countries, especially Turkey, supported the Government of National Accord (GNA), while rivals like Egypt and Russia backed General Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA).

• Afghanistan
  1. Conflict: The 20-year U.S.-led NATO mission post-9/11 and subsequent indirect struggles post-2021 Taliban takeover.
  2. Involvement: NATO countries' past support for the Afghan government contrasts with ongoing tensions with regional players like Pakistan and Iran.

• Yemen
  1. Conflict: A civil war between the Houthi rebels and the Saudi-led coalition since 2015.
  2. Involvement: NATO allies like the U.S. and U.K. support Saudi Arabia through arms and intelligence, while Iran backs the Houthi faction.

• Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea)
  1. Conflict: Ongoing civil conflicts, particularly in Ethiopia's Tigray region.
  2. Involvement: Western countries, including NATO states, often back stabilization missions, while rival influences from China and Russia complicate dynamics.

• Sahel Region (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger)
  1. Conflict: Extremist insurgencies and political instability.
  2. Involvement: France (a NATO member) previously led counterterrorism efforts but faced challenges due to growing Russian influence, notably through Wagner Group activities.

• South Caucasus (Armenia and Azerbaijan)
  1. Conflict: Periodic wars over Nagorno-Karabakh.
  2. Involvement: NATO member Turkey strongly supports Azerbaijan, while Armenia traditionally aligns with Russia.

• Key Drivers: Energy security, counter-terrorism, ideological competition (democracy vs. authoritarianism), and strategic geographic control.
• Non-NATO/OECD Involvement: Countries like China, Iran, and Russia often counterbalance NATO efforts, leading to further regional instability.

These proxy conflicts highlight the complexity of modern warfare, where direct confrontation is increasingly replaced by indirect support and influence.

The selection of proxy war “theaters” often follows a strategic logic similar to settling disputes in a location that minimizes collateral damage to areas of core interest, much like “taking it outside” during a bar fight or playing a cricket match on a neutral ground. Here's how this analogy applies:

• Minimizing Direct Damage:
  • Powerful states (e.g., OECD/NATO countries) avoid waging wars directly on their own soil to protect their infrastructure, economies, and populations.
  • By choosing external locations (often developing or strategically critical regions), they ensure their domestic environments remain stable.
• Strategic Importance:
  • Proxy theaters are often in regions that are geopolitically valuable, like trade routes, energy reserves, or buffer zones against adversaries.
  • Examples: The Middle East (energy and trade routes), Ukraine (buffer against Russia), and the South China Sea (maritime dominance).
• Exploitation of Instability:
  • Proxy theaters are often chosen in regions already experiencing instability or conflict. This allows external powers to amplify existing divisions without being seen as the primary instigators.
  • Examples: Syria's civil war and Libya's post-Gaddafi power vacuum.
• Neutral Grounds for Indirect Competition:
  • These theaters act as “neutral zones” where rival powers can compete without direct conflict.
  • Avoiding direct warfare reduces the risk of escalation into global or nuclear conflict.
• Global Public Perception:
  • Fighting in distant proxy theaters often reduces domestic political backlash and is easier to justify internationally under the guise of aiding allies or fighting terrorism.

• “Let's Take This Outside”:
  • Proxy wars often prevent direct confrontation between powerful adversaries within “sacred” areas, such as NATO member states or major OECD nations, just as bar fights are taken outside to avoid damaging the bar or involving innocent patrons.
  • Example: The Cold War's numerous proxy wars in Asia, Africa, and Latin America rather than direct US-Soviet confrontation.
• Cricket Matches in a Ground:
  • Just as cricket requires a ground conducive to fair play, proxy wars require specific conditions: regional instability, existing divisions, and potential for strategic gain. The “ground” is carefully chosen to maximize advantages while avoiding unmanageable chaos.

• Ukraine: Strategic to NATO for countering Russia but away from NATO soil
  • Deutsche Welle
  • CNA
• Yemen: A battleground for Saudi-Iran rivalry, avoiding direct Gulf conflicts
  • Philstar
• Sahel Region: France's interventions counter Russian influence via Wagner without affecting European soil.

This strategy reflects the desire to control and influence without risking catastrophic damage to key interests or escalation into uncontrollable global conflict.

Adding Korea and Afghanistan to the list of modern proxy war theaters provides further insight into how conflicts in these regions fit the framework of indirect confrontations orchestrated by global powers. Here's a detailed breakdown:

• Context: The Korean Peninsula has been a flashpoint for global powers since the Korean War (1950–1953), which itself was a Cold War proxy conflict between the U.S. (backing South Korea) and the Soviet Union/China (backing North Korea). Today, tensions remain high, fueled by North Korea's nuclear ambitions and the U.S.-led alliance in the region.
• Current Proxy Elements:
  • U.S./NATO Influence: South Korea is a key ally of the U.S., hosting American troops and participating in joint military drills with the U.S. and Japan, which North Korea views as preparation for invasion.
  • North Korea's Alliances: Supported indirectly by China and Russia, North Korea acts as a buffer state and a tool for these powers to challenge U.S. dominance in East Asia. Its threats often redirect U.S. military and political focus from other regions.
• Strategic Significance:
  • The Korean Peninsula serves as a battleground for influence between the U.S. and China.
  • It is critical to maintaining power dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region.
• Recent Developments:
  • North Korea's increased missile tests and military provocations keep tensions high, forcing sustained U.S. military presence and expenditure in South Korea
    • CNA
    • Philstar
  • Martial law declared in South Korea recently highlights internal political instability amidst external threats
    • Washington Examiner

• Context: Afghanistan has been a proxy war theater for decades, from the Soviet invasion in 1979 (fought with U.S.-backed mujahideen) to the U.S.-led NATO intervention after 9/11. Even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, it remains a focal point for regional and global power struggles.
• Current Proxy Elements:
  • Post-U.S. Withdrawal: With NATO forces gone, Afghanistan's Taliban-led government has established ties with China and Russia, challenging Western influence.
  • Pakistan and Iran: These neighboring countries compete for influence in Afghanistan, often using local factions to assert control. The U.S. has accused Pakistan of providing sanctuary to Taliban fighters during its conflict.
  • China: Expanding its Belt and Road Initiative into Afghanistan and securing mineral resources, China’s growing influence challenges NATO-aligned countries' regional goals.
• Strategic Significance:
  • Afghanistan sits at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, making it a critical location for trade routes and natural resources.
  • It serves as a testing ground for power projections by China, Russia, and regional players like India and Pakistan.
• Recent Developments:
  • Afghanistan's economic collapse under the Taliban has created opportunities for China and Russia to extend their influence, while Western nations watch cautiously from the sidelines.
  • Extremist groups, such as ISIS-K, threaten stability, drawing international interest in counterterrorism measures
    • CNA
    • Philstar

• Korea and Afghanistan illustrate how proxy wars are carefully chosen based on geopolitical importance and the ability to challenge adversaries indirectly.
• Korea remains a theater of military and nuclear posturing between U.S.-aligned forces and North Korea's supporters, while Afghanistan is a stage for great-power competition after decades of Western intervention.
• Both regions serve as examples of the “bar fight logic”—strategic areas chosen to avoid direct confrontation in sensitive territories like NATO member states or core OECD nations.