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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers