Democracy Dies in Darkness

Global Opinions Opinions Post Opinión Post Opinions Arabic Editorial Board The Opinions Essa

Opinion: The success of ‘Squid Game’ illustrates

the bene ts of globalization and free trade

A scene from “Squid Game” on Net ix. (Youngkyu Park/Net ix)

Opinion by Max Boot

Columnist

Today at 12:45 p.m. EDT

Like millions of other people around the world, I binge-watched all nine episodes of
“Squid Game” last week. This Korean-language series has become a breakout hit on
Netflix, enthralling viewers with its dystopian story of indebted people playing
children’s games for the highest stakes possible: If they win, they get rich; if they
lose, they die. It’s insanely watchable, with cliffhangers at the end of every episode
ensuring that you come back for more.

Support our journalism. Subscribe today

It is also a brutal satire of the wealth inequality produced by unbridled capitalism. It

is ironic, then, that the worldwide success of “Squad Game” is, in fact, the ultimate
tribute to the power of capitalism — and in particular to two of its much-maligned
outgrowths: globalization and free trade. Both have done a great deal to improve our
entertainment experience.

When I was growing up in the 1980s, watching TV meant watching three major
broadcast networks, PBS or a handful of local independent stations. It was a grab-
bag of reruns and new shows. Some were great if still low-rent by modern standards:
“Get Smart,” “The Rockford Files,” “Cheers.” Most were simply trashy: “The Dukes
of Hazzard,” “Starsky & Hutch,” “CHiPs,” “The Love Boat,” “Charlie’s Angels.” All of
the episodes were self-contained (story lines were resolved every week), all were
interrupted by commercials, and all were U.S. productions. The only foreign shows
available back then were the British costume dramas on PBS.

Better dramas with longer story arcs, such as “St. Elsewhere” and “Hill Street Blues,”
began to appear in the 1980s, but it was not until the 2000s that U.S. television
achieved a new golden age with shows such as “The Sopranos,” “The Wire,” “Mad
Men,” and “Breaking Bad.” But that age has now ended. “Game of Thrones” aired its
last episode in 2019, and there has not been a U.S. series since then that has
achieved a similar cultural impact.

I love shows such as “Ozark,” “Succession” and “Ted Lasso,” but that still leaves me
and lot of other Americans watching foreign offerings — in particular on Netflix,
which has smartly led the way in building an international streaming platform. I
have been greatly entertained not just by South Korea’s “Squid Game” but also by
Israel’s “Fauda” and “Shtisel,” France’s “Lupin” and “Call My Agent!,” Germany’s
“Babylon Berlin,” Norway’s “Occupied,” and Britain’s “The Crown.” My favorite is
the French series “The Bureau” on Amazon Prime. It is, in my opinion, the best spy
show ever — and one of the greatest TV shows, period.

No one should be surprised that so many of the best shows are no longer made in
America. The United States, after all, has only 4 percent of the world’s population. It
stands to reason that the other 96 percent would produce a lot of great content. The
miracle is that we are now able to see so much of it. The Internet offers an infinity of
choices, and the more choices you have, the better the prospect of finding something
great to watch. Good thing Washington isn’t limiting imports of foreign shows to
protect producers grousing in Malibu diners about how they can’t get their shows on
the air anymore. Globalization has opened up a vast marketplace for the U.S.
entertainment industry — but also ensured that it no longer enjoys a monopoly on
the domestic market. That’s a good thing.

Every time you watch a foreign TV show, you are seeing the benefits of globalization
and free trade — concepts that have practically become curse words. President Biden
doesn’t demonize globalization or trash trade agreements the way that President
Donald Trump did, but he is continuing the same protectionist policies that Trump
initiated. The Biden administration has shown no interest in rejoining the Trans-
Pacific Partnership or in lifting tariffs on Chinese goods whose cost is paid by U.S.
consumers.

Much of the debate focuses on the people who are hurt by trade — workers in
industries that can’t compete with more cost-effective competitors abroad. We forget
or take for granted the benefits of trade — namely, all of the economic activity that
creates jobs, raises household incomes and improves the quality of life for
consumers (i.e., all of us).

What is happening on TV is a microcosm of an entire economy that has benefited

from imports of everything from textiles to electronics to automobiles. When you
buy a new car, your choices are no longer limited to Ford, General Motors or
Chrysler — and Chrysler isn’t even U.S.-owned anymore. Indeed, in the age of
globalization, the lines between “foreign” and “domestic” blur. An American
company, Apple, sells iPhones, but their components are made all over the world.
Another U.S. company, Netflix, shows TV programs that originate in many other
countries.

We don’t need tariffs to protect workers in dying industries; we can offer them
retraining assistance or welfare benefits to make their lives better despite the
dislocations of a changing economy. And, in the meantime, we can make life better
for everyone by lifting tariffs and encouraging greater globalization.

Comments Gift Article

POPULAR OPINIONS ARTICLES HAND CURATED

Stephanie Grisham: I told the Does your kid want to change Biden’s polling numbers are
Trumps my relationship with a her pronouns? Read this. even worse than they appear
White House sta er had Opinion • Earlier today Opinion • Earlier today
turned abusive. They didn’t
seem to care.
Opinion • Earlier today

washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2021 The Washington Post

About The Post

Contact the Newsroom
Contact Customer Care
Request a Correction
Send a News Tip
Report a Vulnerability
Download the Washington Post App
Policies & Standards
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Cookie Settings
Print Products Terms of Sale
Digital Products Terms of Sale
Submissions & Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices
 Sections Get one year for $29 Sign in
Democracy Dies in Darkness

Global Opinions Opinions Post Opinión Post Opinions Arabic Editorial Board The Opi

Global Opinions

Opinion: A ood of drugs from

Afghanistan may become a bigger threat
than terrorism

People gather around bags containing heroin and hashish at a drug market in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on Sept. 24.
(Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)

Opinion by Hamid Mir

Today at 11:46 a.m. EDT

Hamid Mir is a Pakistani journalist and author.

Pakistan and the United States have been trading accusations about who’s
responsible for the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan.
Yet as they bicker, both countries are ignoring one important consequence of
the Taliban takeover: the coming boom in Afghanistan’s narcotic trade,
which presents a major threat to global health. In the next few years, a flood
of drugs from Afghanistan may become a bigger threat than terrorism.

The 20-year-long U.S. intervention failed to dismantle the narco-economy,

which was the biggest source of funding for the insurgents. The Taliban has
never made any mystery about its friendly relations with some well-known
Afghan drug lords. The grim reality is that opium cultivation expanded from
8,000 hectares in 2001 to 224,000 hectares in 2020.

Taliban warlords were not the only ones making money from the narcotics
business. Many U.S. allies, such as Ahmad Wali Karzai and General Abdul
Rashid Dostum, were also involved in the same trade. In 2018, the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime declared northern Afghanistan, which
was under the control of pro-U.S. warlords between 2001 and 2021, to be a
“heroin hub.” Just a few months before the Taliban returned to Kabul earlier
this year, U.N. officials reported that the group was earning more than $400
million annually from the drug trade.

Today, Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium. This country is

responsible for more than 80 percent of global opium production. How does
the Taliban make money through this illicit business? It makes profits
through taxes on opium crops and by providing protection to processing and
trafficking. Taxes are also collected from laboratories converting opium into
heroin. Shockingly, heroin derived from Afghan opium makes up 95 percent
of the market in Europe.

I recently visited Switzerland for an event where I spoke about lessons from
the war on terrorism. During the question-and-answer session, I noticed a
certain anxiety among the mostly Italian- and German-speaking audience.
Many local politicians and journalists were unnerved by the drug threat from
Afghanistan.

After returning to Pakistan, I spoke to some Afghan and Pakistani officials

about the issue. Many U.N. officials confirmed that Afghanistan is becoming
the biggest threat to public health in Asia, Europe and Africa. Pakistan, Iran,
Central Asia and Turkey are some of the most popular routes for the
smuggling of Afghan narcotics to many parts of the world.

Heroin linked to Afghanistan is being smuggled to drug cartels in Italy,

Russia and even in the United States. Drug labs in Afghanistan are not only
producing heroin and hashish but have also started making
methamphetamine (known as “meth” or “ice”) from the ephedra plant,
which is found in the wild across the country. Meth is easily available to
college and university students in Pakistan.

Last year, authorities in Sri Lanka and Australia noticed a rise in seizures of
this deadly product — most of it linked with Afghanistan. In his first news
conference after the takeover of Kabul, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah
Mujahid promised that the new regime will outlaw the drug trade in
Afghanistan. He also pleaded for international assistance to provide farmers
with alternative crops.

When I spoke recently to some Taliban leaders about their plans against the
narco-business, they were tight-lipped. Some low-level Taliban officials
shared details of actions against liquor shops in Kabul and the arrest of 700
drug users in Helmand last week.

After the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August, it took only a few weeks
until police were seizing tons of narcotics not only in Pakistan but also in
India. Last month, nearly three tons of heroin was seized in an Indian port;
the drugs, which had been shipped from Iran, had originated in Afghanistan.

Highly placed sources in the Pakistani Ministry of Narcotics Control told me

that more than four tons of opium, morphine, heroin, hashish, cocaine, meth
and other narcotics (worth $626 million) were seized from different areas
only in the month of September. Most of the narcotics were recovered from
the areas bordering Afghanistan. The Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) arrested
99 smugglers and carriers, including some Afghans and Nigerians, last
month. ANF data shows that Pakistan is on the front lines of the Afghan drug
trade. Forty percent of Afghan drug trafficking utilizes routes passing
through Pakistan. Seven million Pakistanis are using drugs. Worldwide,
according to the ANF, drug addiction causes 685 deaths a day — compared
with 49 deaths per day from terrorism.

Taliban leaders could earn considerable goodwill from the international

community by taking action against opium cultivation. If they don’t, I believe
that the Afghan drug trade could become the scourge of the world. Former
Afghan president Hamid Karzai once said that either Afghanistan destroys
opium or opium will destroy Afghanistan. He is now living in Kabul under
the protection of the Taliban. The Taliban would be well-advised to heed his
warnings.

Comments Gift Article

OPINIONS ABOUT SOUTH ASIA HAND CURATED

I am an educator of Afghan A breath of fresh air, for now, Imran Khan: Don’t blame
girls. My life’s work is the on Afghan TV Pakistan for the outcome of
Taliban’s greatest need. Opinion • September 28, 2021 the war in Afghanistan
Opinion • September 28, 2021 Opinion • September 27, 2021

View 3 more stories

Company Get The Post Contact Us Terms of Use

About The Post
Newsroom Policies & Standards Gift Subscriptions
Diversity and Inclusion
Careers
Media & Community Relations
WP Creative Group
Accessibility Statement
Become a Subscriber
Mobile & Apps
Newsletters & Alerts
Washington Post Live
Reprints & Permissions
Post Store
Books & E-Books
Newspaper in Education
Print Archives (Subscribers Only)
e-Replica
Today’s Paper
Contact the Newsroom
Contact Customer Care
Contact the Opinions team
Advertise
Licensing & Syndication
Request a Correction
Send a News Tip
Report a Vulnerability
Digital Products Terms of Sale
Print Products Terms of Sale
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Cookie Settings
Submissions & Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices

washingtonpost.com © 1996-2021 The Washington Post

 Sections Get one year for $29 Sign in
Democracy Dies in Darkness

Global Opinions Opinions Post Opinión Post Opinions Arabic Editorial Board The Opi

Global Opinions

Opinion: South Korea’s opposition tells

Biden: Get tougher on North Korea

South Korean soldiers stand guard at a military post in Paju, South Korea, on Oct. 4. (Ahn Young-Joon/AP)

0
Opinion by Josh Rogin
Columnist

Today at 10:51 a.m. EDT

Time may be running out for the Biden administration to work with a
government in South Korea that wants to engage in new diplomacy with
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. If the opposition conservative party takes
over, its leaders say they will take a harder line — and they are calling on
Washington to do the same.

Pyongyang has been signaling both provocation and outreach. Just last week,
North Korea conducted the latest in a series of missile tests. The Kim regime
claimed it had developed a new hypersonic missile to add to the new cruise
missile and train-launched ballistic missiles it also tested last month. But
even as North Korean officials accuse the United States and South Korea of
"hostile policy" at the United Nations, Pyongyang restored a North-South
communications hotline Monday, mixing its belligerence with diplomatic
gestures.

Amid this commotion and confusion, the leadership of South Korea’s

conservative opposition, the People Power Party, came to Washington late
last month to deliver a clear message about Kim’s strategy: Don’t take the
bait. The opposition wants to ramp up pressure on the North, an approach
opposite to that of incumbent President Moon Jae-in, who is serving his last
year in office.

“The Korean public definitely wants some changes here in our joint stance
towards North Korea,” PPP President Lee Jun-seok told me in an interview.
The 36-year-old, Harvard-educated politician is the new face of a younger
generation of South Korea conservatives. The PPP presidential candidate,
former prosecutor general Yoon Seok-youl, is doing well in the polls — and
his party could come to power if it wins the next national election in March.

Before his single term ends, Moon is making one last push to start new
nuclear and peace negotiations with the North. Moon’s latest idea, which he
announced in New York during his speech last month at the U.N. General
Assembly, is for both sides to officially declare an end to the Korean War as a
first step toward denuclearization and peace. (The 1950-1953 Korean War
ended merely with an armistice that still holds today.) The conservative
opposition is warning against that move, saying it will only reward Kim for
his provocations.

“The Korean public now believes everything we do with North Korea has to
be done in a reciprocal manner,” Lee claimed. “And we expect the Biden
administration to do the same with regards to the end of war declaration and
denuclearization.”

The end-of-war declaration is not likely to get much traction; it has been
tried and failed before. But the South Korean opposition not only wants the
Biden team to reject Moon’s plan — it is also calling for more sanctions on
the North and an increased emphasis on human rights issues, to increase the
leverage of the international community vis-a-vis Pyongyang.

“As long as there is not a clear statement of denuclearization from Kim Jong
Un, the Biden administration should continue to strengthen its sanctions
against North Korea,” said conservative parliamentarian Thae Yong-ho, who
was a top North Korean diplomat before he defected with his family to South
Korea. “The easing of economic sanctions will only justify the possession of
nuclear weapons. So, we should continue to send the message to the North
Korean people that Kim Jong Un’s choices are wrong.”

Of course, sanctions and pressure haven’t produced denuclearization so far,

partly because China has undermined that strategy over the years. But the
South Korean conservatives are pledging to change that dynamic as well. Lee
told me his party wants South Korea to take a larger role working with the
United States and its partners to counter China’s malign actions around Asia.

The conservative party wants to rebuild trilateral ties among South Korea,
Japan and the United States, said Lee. South Korea can be a good substitute
in the global supply chain as countries seek alternatives to China. And South
Korea under the conservatives would be open to joining multilateral groups
such as the Quad, a diplomatic construct that currently includes the United
States, Japan, Australia and India.

“The Moon government chose to be friends to nobody, in an effort to avoid

becoming an enemy of anybody,” Lee said. “[South Korea] now has to make a
choice in terms of whether we are leaning towards China or the U.S.”

It’s true that the Moon government has sought to be a balancer between the
two superpowers, while doing everything conceivable to encourage
engagement with the North. That doesn’t jibe with the Biden plan to rally
Asian allies to cooperate against China while giving Kim the cold shoulder. If
the PPP were to govern as Lee predicts, it would be more in line with the
Biden administration’s approach to Asia.

The administration must also recognize that if North Korea isn’t interested
in real negotiations, a switch of government in Seoul could help the United
States keep up the pressure on both Pyongyang and Beijing. In an odd way,
the South Korean conservatives and the liberal Biden administration could
end up being a good match.

But in the end, there’s no solution to the North Korean nuclear issue that can
avoid dealing directly with Kim, who continues to amass new and dangerous
weapons. Sooner or later, hopefully from a position of strength, Washington
and Seoul will have to try again to start substantive negotiations with
Pyongyang.

“The choice between sanctions and diplomacy is a false one. You need both,”
said Bruce Klingner, senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at the
Heritage Foundation. “If there was an easy solution to the North Korea
nuclear problem, somebody would have come up with it already.”

0 Comments Gift Article

OPINIONS ABOUT ASIA PACIFIC HAND CURATED

Duterte is worried about the How to stop the coming crisis The greatest gure in sports,
ICC. He should be. with North Korea maybe ever, just retired. You
Opinion • October 4, 2021 Opinion • October 1, 2021 probably haven’t heard of him.
Opinion • September 28, 2021

View 3 more stories

Company Get The Post Contact Us Terms of Use

About The Post
Newsroom Policies & Standards Gift Subscriptions
Diversity and Inclusion
Careers
Media & Community Relations
WP Creative Group
Accessibility Statement
Become a Subscriber
Mobile & Apps
Newsletters & Alerts
Washington Post Live
Reprints & Permissions
Post Store
Books & E-Books
Newspaper in Education
Print Archives (Subscribers Only)
e-Replica
Today’s Paper
Contact the Newsroom
Contact Customer Care
Contact the Opinions team
Advertise
Licensing & Syndication
Request a Correction
Send a News Tip
Report a Vulnerability
Digital Products Terms of Sale
Print Products Terms of Sale
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Cookie Settings
Submissions & Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices

washingtonpost.com © 1996-2021 The Washington Post

October 01