Squid Game gripped viewers in 94 countries, becoming the most watched Netflix show ever. The Oxford English Dictionary added 26 Korean words. The K-pop band BTS has topped charts internationally and met US President Joe Biden at the White House this summer.
After sweeping through Asia years ago, hallyu — the “Korean wave” of culture — has crashed upon Western shores, as documented in a new exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. This is a serious business.
A recent book, Shrimp to Whale, plays on an old saying portraying South Korea as a tiny creature surrounded by leviathans, and captures its triumphant postwar ascent from abject poverty and trauma.
Illustration: Yusha
South Korea still regards itself as a middle power, but in economics, technology and especially culture, it is now a powerhouse. One government source jokes that soft power — a country’s ability to get what it wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment — is the South’s nuclear weapon.
Joseph Nye, who coined the term “soft power” in the late 1980s, has suggested that it depends on a nation’s culture, political values and foreign policies. Building it is not as straightforward as amassing the bombs and tanks required for hard power.
China has invested heavily in soft-power initiatives, but has yet to produce a pop band like Blackpink or a film like Snowpiercer. Its determination to micromanage cultural projects hampers its ability to appeal to foreign audiences. Nye suggested that China’s influence remains limited as long as it “fans the flames of nationalism and holds tight the reins of party control.”
In contrast, democratic South Korea has pursued an arm’s-length approach, modeled partly on UK initiatives such as the British Council. Squid Game and the Oscar-winning Parasite hardly shed a flattering light on the nation that produced them. The stories triumphed by capturing the monstrous cruelties and inequality of modern capitalism in South Korea, in a way that has resonated more widely.
The strategy is a recognition that soft power belongs to nations, not governments. The origins of South Korea’s status as a cultural behemoth are complex, but if the state can take some credit, civil society should take more. There was outrage in 2016 when it emerged that then-South Korean president Park Geun-hye’s administration had blacklisted thousands of artists and entertainers — a reversion to the kind of censorship and punishment once seen under authoritarian leaders, including Park’s father. It is the people who have nurtured, promoted and defended media and artistic independence.
Globally, this is an era in which diplomatic platitudes have been stripped away, and force laid bare once more. Nationalist strongmen are in charge around the world. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was the ultimate assertion of hard power. Yet the video addresses by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who has so consummately inhabited the role of war leader — along with the sharing of daily life by citizens, even the defiant humor of the country’s postage stamps — have all bolstered public support for Ukraine in other countries.
In doing so, Ukrainians have helped to maintain the political will to keep supplying it with heavy weaponry in the face of the Russian menace. Soft power is hard to define and harder to master, but it counts.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US