
China Bans K-pop Music - owens99
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/11/29/china-bans-korean-hallyu-kpop/
======
resfirestar
The linked article is hyperbolic if we're generous, in my opinion it qualifies
as an instance of "fake news".

>China has prohibited all hallyu, or Korean Wave (K-pop), content in the
country

This and the headline are false. K-pop is available on Chinese music streaming
services, Korean dramas are similarly still airing, etc. What is true is that
Korean stars are increasingly being barred from having concerts, events, and
TV appearances in China, and that is leading to concern about whether more
regulations are to come. BTW, MAMA 2016 went ahead without issues.

A non-clickbait account: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/04/south-
koreas-k-po...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/04/south-koreas-k-pop-
stars-caught-crossfire-diplomatic-spat-china/)

------
thesmallestcat
If China didn't want a missile shield at their doorstep, maybe, just maybe,
they should've stop propping up a regime that carries out provocative
ballistic missile tests in the region and threatens nuclear strikes against
neighbors ad nauseam. China has nobody but themselves and shortsighted foreign
policy to blame for this mess.

~~~
LordWinstanley
Yes China. Stop propping up the USA!

------
otoburb
Curious how China's escalating displeasure with the THAAD system will affect
the 2M Korean-speaking Chinese known as Joseonok[1]. One would have hoped
their fortunes were on the rise, even if only slowly, but national attention
on "Koreans" in general might be misconstrued against them.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_China)

~~~
jcoffland
For those, like me, who were not in the know regarding THAAD, it stands for
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and is a US made antimissile defense
system. The US is working with South Korea to install THAAD systems there.
China is not happy about this.

~~~
sytelus
It seems like pure defense system. Why should anyone object to it?

~~~
dunkelheit
Because it breaks the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. If China loses
the ability to effectively retaliate against a hypothetical US nuclear strike,
it loses its superpower status.

~~~
dingaling
THAAD isn't overly destablising to MAD, which operates on the strategic level.
It has little effectiveness against ICBM re-entry vehicles which move very,
very fast ( about 8 to 10 km / s ) and have all sorts of decoys and
countermeasures.

It is designed for dealing with theatre missiles, IRBMs and the like, which
move much more slowly, aren't well protected and aren't generally considered
in the MAD calcul

Per state.gov:

 _Many of our regional defense deployments, like the Patriot system and the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD system, are inherently designed
for theater use. They are not capable of defending against ICBMs launched at
the United States. THAAD, however, is capable of defending against the medium-
range and intermediate-range ballistic missile that North Korea is deploying._

------
robert_foss
So it's a response to American imperial ambitions?

Note how missile defence in the nuclear arena can't be interpreted as purely
defensive as it increases the viability of a first strike.

America also has retained the right to the "first strike" option unlikely
China which has declined such an option.

------
avar
There's something truly childish about Chinese diplomacy. They regularly
release statements to the effect that the Chinese people have been insulted by
some obscure diplomatic statement, and now they're implementing sanctions in
the form of banning pop music of all things.

Anyone have any recommendations for books or articles that shed some light on
this seemingly bizarre behavior?

~~~
true_religion
It does not seem childish to me.

From the article:

> Why? .... South Korea made the decision to deploy the THAAD American missile
> defense system in the country

They are responding to increased military tension with their neighbor, with a
minor economic sanction that will not hurt the health, welfare, or stability
of their neighbouring country.

Such sanctions are a warning shot---a way of saying "yes you see what we did
to the pop industry? we can do that to your heavy mining industry next".

~~~
krona
> we can do that to your heavy mining industry next

You're ostensibly incorrect because China is a member of the WTO and can't
unilaterally start economic sanctions against other WTO members.

I'm no expert but a particular kind of music (k-pop) is more cultural than
anything else and so it may be one of the few legal options China has.

~~~
true_religion
The US is a member of the WTO, but banned online gambling for years without
any real sanctions against them.

Countries can and often do unilaterally break portions of global trade deals,
and don't care unless there's action taken against them.

Oil producing countries are in a full blown international cartel, but does
anyone stop them? Nope.

Is China going to get hit, whilst they're producing so much of the raw
materials needed for electronics?

~~~
krona
> The US is a member of the WTO, but banned online gambling for years without
> any real sanctions against them.

I see you're trying to cast a hypocritical light on the US, even though the US
has nothing to do with it.

The complainants (Antigua and Barbuda) were compensated in 2014, by the US.

Ultimately a country can build a case for banning a thing (a good, service,
etc.) but if a country says 'These widgets are OK, in fact we manufacture them
ourselves, but we've decided to ban the ones that come from country X' then
that usually is anti-trade in no uncertain terms, in WTO language it is
'unfair.'

It's not like the US banned online gambling on purpose so as to try to cripple
the Antiguan economy, as would be the case for banning Korean exports to
China.

------
TheRealDunkirk
The article reminds me how Obama stopped the burgeoning deployment of this
system in various European countries at Russia's request, right after he took
office, and I wonder if Trump will try to restart the effort to deploy them.

~~~
resfirestar
I'd be surprised if he tried to start a diplomatic crisis with Russia right
away, just yesterday he said the US will have good relations with Russia under
his admin.

The whole Trump/Russia situation is similar to Obama's pledges to warm
relations with Russia (most famously, the "reset"), complete with the
opposition's foreign policy hawks being perpetually outraged. Of course, the
economic crisis was first through tenth on everyone's minds, so it never
became a top issue for Obama.

------
dajohnson89
A few concerts and other media products weren't approved. I didn't see in the
article any official government statement categorically banning K-pop.

------
horsecaptin
That's one way to protect the local industry.

~~~
coconutoperator
Actually, it's not aiming at protecting local music industry, if so they would
do that years ago. It's more like to push political/business pressure on South
Korea to stop them installing THAAD.

~~~
caryhartline
Yep, it said so in the article. But it's also possibly going to have the
effect of protecting the local industry.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It is always hard to tell why they do things. The pretext is...retaliation,
but they look at all the other wins, and protectionism has a lot to do with
it. Heck, Korean dramas were getting way too popular for local media comfort
before the THAAD cut backs.

~~~
XorNot
S. Korea is also a democracy. The regime is highly suspicious of any foreign
culture which might make people more interested in control of their own
government.

------
galfarragem
When we press the right buttons, we see that the world is plenty of crazy
leaders.

