Here at The Oxford Blue, we’ve been keeping a close eye on recent voting events in Canada, Australia, Germany and the Vatican. Now, we turn to South Korea as candidates for the next election have been announced, and it looks like Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party’s candidate, is already pulling away from the right-wing People Power Party. We’ll take a look at the impact Yoon Suk-yeol’s martial law declaration has had on this election, and what will sway voters most at the polls on 3 June 2025.
From democracy to autocracy, Malian leader General Assimi Goïta has announced a suspension of all political parties indefinitely. Being only another act in limiting freedom of speech, Goïta has been on a mission since 2020 to crackdown on dissent and establish his authority. But what does Wednesday’s decree tell us about his success in achieving this? And how does it fit into the wider context of political instability in Western Africa?
Last week we also covered the re-ignition of the Kashmir conflict. Only within the last few days have tensions soared yet again, with India launching air and missile strikes on Tuesday, and subsequent attacks taking place afterwards. Politicians on both sides have also ramped up their rhetoric, and so if peace looked unlikely beforehand, it’s looking almost impossible now.
Finally, we’ll bring you the latest on Gaza. Israel’s blockade on food, fuel and medicine has now become the longest blockade since the start of the war. As the UN and other countries struggle to make Israel comply with international standards, the U.S. have been putting a different plan into place; high-level discussions with Israel over an American administration of Gaza have developed, while UN condemns such a proposal.
Off to the Races: Candidates Announced for the South Korean Presidential Election
Tom Barrett
Election season has hit South Korea, as snap elections for president are due to be held on 3 June. In the shadow of last December’s brief declaration of martial law by former president Yoon Suk Yeol; his decision and subsequent impeachment have damaged not only his party’s internal stability, but also its image with moderate voters. Now, his hardline right-wing People Power Party is straggling behind in the polls against the Democratic Party, led by veteran liberal candidate Lee Jae-myung.
“Swing voters or moderate voters have begun to support the Democratic Party, seeing lawmakers protest in front of the Constitutional Court”, argues Shin Yul, professor of political science at South Korea’s leading Myongji University. Yul states that even conservative voters, who supported Yoon’s impeachment, have started switching over.
Making the situation even worse for the conservative People’s Power Party their own internal chaos. On 9 May, the party ditched their initial candidate, former democracy activist and labour minister Kim Moon-soo, in favour of former prime minister Han Duck-soo.
While Han seems the obvious, holding both a majority of support among party members and better polling than Kim, this “overnight political coup” shows the party’s internal disarray. Kim Moon-soo,whose refusal to step aside had already led the floor leader of the People Power Party calling Kim’s attempts “pathetic”, has claimed “last night, democracy in our party died”. The People Power Party has argued that this was the only way forward in order to field one unified conservative candidate, decrying the stubbornness of Kim who instead has threatened that “Those responsible for this situation will be held accountable legally and politically”.
This is disastrous for the already trailing conservatives, as not only are they behind in the polls, but do not even seem to be able to keep control over their own party. For a party that only just won that last election by 0.7%, thanks to a maverick leftist candidate, the situation seems dire..
All this has led to an air of optimism in the Democratic Party, with one lawmaker saying “It would take an act of God for Lee not to win”. For this reason, they have seemed to keep a low profile through the campaign, seeking to let the opposition tear itself apart while moving gradually towards the centre of South Korean politics. Running a campaign based on economic issues, the once fiery Lee has dropped some of his more radical politics and instead rebranded the Democratic Party as the party of “moderate conservatives”, triggering limited backlash among traditional supporters such as the Korean Trade Union Congress. However, this has failed to develop into anything substantive, with the party remaining resolutely behind their candidate.
Lee has been through a lot in Korean politics, with this being his second run for president after narrowly being defeated in 2022. Since then he has had to go through extensive surgery following a near-fatal stabbing in early 2024, as well as gaining international attention for livestreaming jumping over the fence of parliament in opposition to President Yoon’s declaration of martial law.
Most recently however, he has claimed recent court rulings in several criminal trials to be politically motivated. Many legal scholars, such as Hong Sung-soo, have expressed their skepticism at the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating, “I am doubtful whether there was enough time for the 12 justices to sufficiently review and debate the vast number of trial documents”. Meanwhile, Democratic Party supporters have simply argued that these charges are “putting fingers on the scale”.
Overall, it seems these developments will not do much to sway the course of the election, with moderate votes seeming unswayed by recent Supreme Court rulings. Without a coherent opposition, and weighed down by the martial law debacle, it is unlikely that the People Power Party will be able to hold onto power for another term. With the Democratic Party moving more towards the centre, and the People Power Party engulfed in factional squabbling, what the hardline conservatives are offering seems less and less appealing to the Korean electorate.
Political Parties Suspended in Mali
Daniel Burns
Four years after the Malian Army forcefully took power in a coup d’état, the people of Mali have started to find their voice. On 5 May, hundreds participated in the first pro-democracy protests since the beginning of the new regime. However, in response, the government has sent a clear sign that the military rule is there to stay.
Heard across the nation via radio and TV, General Assimi Goïta’s decree to suspend the activities of all political parties was announced on Wednesday. This is to be “until further notice for reasons of public order”.
The announcement is the latest, and one of the most blatant, examples of the Government’s agenda to shut down all forms of public dissent. For example, after Col. Alpha Yaya Sangaré published his book, “Mali: The Challenge of Terrorism in Africa” in 2023, he was abducted by unidentified men. In an attempt to unearth the Mali government’s human right abuses, his book detailed cases of torture, disappearances and arbitrary arrests.
Sangaré’s abduction highlights the lack of political freedom in Mali. Yet it also demonstrates the government’s struggle to fully crackdown on opposition.
Last year, more than 80 parties and associations demanded the return of constitutional order and presidential elections in Mali. In response, on 10 April, Goïta announced a decree suspending these parties’ activities. It was to be—in the familiar words—“until further notice”.
Before this, Goïta had planned on holding elections in 2024. But the political instability gave him reason to postpone them indefinitely.
Therefore, what happened this week can be understood in context as a broader struggle between the government and the people. Yet it should also be seen in a wider geopolitical context; Mali falls into what some experts are calling a “coup belt” across West and Central Africa. Known as “terrorism’s epicentre”, the Sahel region (from Senegal in the west to Eritrea in the east) sees half of the world’s terrorist-related deaths.
Some blame this on the leaders in the region refusing to appease demands for democracy. For example, Joseph Asunka from Afrobarometer argues that this stubbornness has “led to a decline in popular confidence in democratic governance and an increasing attraction to military rule and intervention”.
Nigerian President Bola Tinubu also said coups could be prevented if West Africa tries to “strengthen [its] democratic institutions and secure the respect for human rights and the rule of law”.
Yet the Mali government has opted for a different route; instead of turning to democracy, it is doubling down on its suppressive efforts. Yet while the government tries to assert its authority, it is clear the people will not go down without a fight.
Kashmir Conflict Escalates
Elana Roberts
On the night of Tuesday, 6 May, India launched missile and air strikes on nine military targets across Pakistan and the Pakistan-administered part of Kashmir. This follows the 22 April attack in Kashmir on a group of Indian tourists that killed 26 people. More broadly, it has caused a resurgence of the tense relations between India and Pakistan over the historically disputed region.
As of last week, when The Oxford Blue covered the issue, the Indian government held Pakistan responsible for the attack, whilst Pakistan denied any connection to it. A group self-identifying as the ‘Resistance Front’ laid claim to the attack on social media, which Indian officials believe to be a front of the Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
In response, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked thousands of visas issued to Pakistani nationals in India and threatened the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, which supplies 80% of water needed for irrigation and hydropower. Pakistan was outraged by this threat, claiming that it was “an act of war” and responded by ceasing all trade with India, among other punitive measures.
Several countries, including China and Iran, called on India and Pakistan to resolve the conflict peacefully. India and Pakistan have already fought three wars over Kashmir and the issue of its governance remains unsolved. Still, it was hoped that this time the tensions between the neighbouring nations would not escalate into a full-out conflict.
With the events of 6 May, the probability of a peaceful resolution seems to be diminishing.
It is clear that India is taking military action against Pakistan-based terrorists that it claims are linked to the attack in Kashmir. The airstrikes were planned to target the bases of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba in what New Delhi labelled “Operation Sindoor”.
The conflict has stretched beyond the de facto border between Pakistan and India. The deepest hit of the attack was 100 km within Pakistan, targeting the headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammed. Srinath Raghavan, a Delhi-based historian, believes the attack was intended as a deterrent by the Indian government, aimed at reasserting its military strength.
A military spokesperson for Pakistan claims that the military also had to shoot down five Indian fighter jets. The Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif released a statement on 8 May that for its action against Pakistan, India will “now have to pay the price”.
India and Pakistan both report conflicting civilian casualty figures from the initial attack. Both also claim that further attacks were attempted over the night of Wednesday 7 May. The conflicting reports make it difficult to determine how the nations are responding.
The possibility for a peaceful de-escalation remains on the table. But the long history of conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, combined with each side’s recent actions further diminishing the chances of such an outcome.
Israel Blocks Gaza for over 70 Days
Devika Manish Kumar
On 2 March, Israel put a blockade on all goods and supplies from entering the Gaza Strip, including food, fuel, and medicine. It has now lasted more than 70 days, making it the longest blockade of the territory since the beginning of the war.
Israel imposed the blockade after Hamas refused to accept Israel’s change to the ceasefire terms, as agreed in January.
The original agreement included two phases: the first where Hamas would release 33 Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian detainees, along with a partial withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Gaza. The second phase would involve the release of the remaining hostages, a permanent ceasefire, and the complete withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the strip. Negotiations on the details of the second phase were meant to start in early February but never began.
Hours following the completion of the first phase on 2 March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office announced it would adopt an alternative “framework”. This stipulated the immediate release of half of the remaining hostages followed by permanent ceasefire negotiations, though without a withdrawal of Israeli troops. The PM’s office stated the new framework would provide additional time for discussions on how to end the war, however Hamas however stated it would only release the remaining hostages under the terms of the original agreement.
The impasse led to a collapse in the ceasefire on 18 March when Israeli forces resumed airstrikes in Gaza. The blockade has also led to severe shortages of food and medical supplies, which intandem with military action have led to the deaths of over 2,300 Palestinians over the last 70 days.
In April, the World Food Program reported that it ran out of food stocks in Gaza. Meanwhile, food prices in Gaza have increased 1,400 percent since the end of the ceasefire. The Gaza government media office said 57 people, mostly children, have died of malnutrition since March. Hamas has reportedly executed some alleged looters of food stores and community kitchens.
International condemnation is mounting against the blockade with calls for a renewed ceasefire. In April, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described Gaza as “a killing field—and civilians are in an endless death loop”. Days later, the heads of six UN agencies issued a statement describing the acts of war in Gaza as showing “an utter disregard for human life”. Likewise, in May the European Union called on Israel to immediately lift the blockade. “Using aid as a tool of war is prohibited under International Humanitarian Law,” the statement added.
Earlier this week, Israel’s security cabinet approved plans to further expand its military offensive in Gaza, including seizure of the entire territory. Details are also emerging of a new humanitarian aid mechanism, led by the U.S., where private companies would replace the UN and international agencies in the distribution of aid in Gaza. Both Israel and the U.S. have accused international entities of enabling Hamas to divert aid. The UN has described the proposal as contravening “global humanitarian principles”.
Reuters reported that the United States and Israel have also held “high-level” discussions on an American-led administration of Gaza until the territory has been fully demilitarized and stabilised. This plan would involve inviting other countries to participate while excluding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank.