On July 3, South Korea’s National Assembly passed a resolution condemning China’s unilateral installation of steel-frame structures in the West Sea (also known as the Yellow Sea) – in an area that falls well within South Korea’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The vote was overwhelming: 252 in favor, none against.
But seven lawmakers abstained.
While the resolution was non-binding, it carried powerful symbolic weight. Territorial sovereignty is not a partisan issue. That seven legislators declined to support a resolution defending South Korea’s maritime rights raises uncomfortable questions.
China, which continues its encroachment on South Korean sovereignty, is likely to view this political hesitation as a green light to act more boldly.
Abstention signals quiet alignment with Chinese interests
The seven abstaining lawmakers came from the Democratic Party (Kim Young-bae, Lee Ki-heon, Hong Kee-won), the Reform Party (Shin Jang-sik), and the Progressive Party (Yoon Jong-oh, Son Sol, Jeon Jong-deok).
Lawmakers from the Democratic and Reform parties offered no explanation. The Progressive Party claimed that “escalating tensions” was not the right approach, though the resolution was restrained in tone and it was China that initiated the provocation.
All seven represent left-leaning parties, and while abstention is not equivalent to endorsement, it reflects a troubling reluctance to push back against Chinese violations.
Although the steel-frame structures China erected are not minor marine markers, the Chinese Embassy in Korea describes them as “deep-sea aquaculture facilities in China’s coastal waters.” Yet they sit within the Provisional Measures Zone – a disputed area where China holds no recognized jurisdiction.
They are part of a broader salami-slicing strategy – a slow, incremental encroachment tactic designed to change facts on the ground without triggering outright conflict. This is the same playbook Beijing has used in the South China Sea.
By installing permanent infrastructure in the region, Beijing appears to be asserting de facto control under the guise of civilian use.
Despite official protests from South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a near-unanimous resolution in parliament, these seven lawmakers refused to join the national consensus.
Soft power hardening
This may be the most visible sign yet that Beijing’s influence in South Korea has moved beyond soft power and into the very machinery of representative government.
Over the past decade, China has systematically cultivated elite relationships in liberal democracies – through financial leverage, academia, media and party-to-party ties. South Korea’s geopolitical importance makes it a prime target. The abstentions suggest that this strategy may be paying off.
Conservative lawmaker Yoo Sang-beom condemned the abstentions. “There can be no neutrality when sovereignty is at stake,” he said. “Those who cower before China and abandon even the most basic resolution to defend our seas are unfit to represent the people.”
This resolution wasn’t about militarism or nationalism. It was about affirming that a neighboring superpower cannot unilaterally install structures inside South Korea’s EEZ without consequence. Silence, in this case, is submission.
While China encroaches, the US makes things worse
If Beijing is the long-term challenge, Washington is doing little to help. In fact, the US may be worsening the problem.
On July 7, the Trump administration notified Seoul that it would impose a 25% tariff on imports from South Korea, citing trade imbalances and economic security.
This comes at a time when South Korea’s economy and political system are already being swayed by Chinese influence. The US decision undercuts a key democratic partner precisely when it needs support, not punishment.
Even traditionally pro-US voices in South Korea are struggling to justify American actions. Tariffs like these not only strain the alliance but create room for Beijing to exploit Seoul’s frustration and push its narrative of American unreliability.
A region without anchors
The broader security environment offers little comfort. North Korea remains nuclear-armed and unpredictable. Japan, still constrained by its pacifist constitution and domestic priorities, plays a minimal role in collective regional defense.
South Korea is finding itself increasingly isolated.
Its primary strategic partners are either absent, indifferent, or actively punitive. That vacuum is precisely the condition in which Beijing’s incrementalism thrives.
Between alliance fatigue and authoritarian pressure
Seven abstentions on a symbolic vote may seem insignificant. But when combined with growing Chinese influence, American economic pressure, and weakened regional cooperation, it signals a deeper unraveling.
Whether these lawmakers acted out of fear, ideology, or indifference, they owe both the public and the international community a clear explanation. In the absence of one, the public – and Beijing – will be left to draw their own conclusions.
