Rivalry

Feb. 18 (Asia Today) — South Korea faces mounting strategic pressure as rivalry between the United States and China intensifies across the Indo-Pacific, raising questions about how Seoul should balance its security alliance with Washington and its economic ties with Beijing.

Analysts say the regional balance of power is entering a new phase. U.S. carrier strike groups continue to patrol the Western Pacific and longstanding alliances remain intact. Yet some experts argue Washington’s long-term strategy integrating economic, diplomatic and industrial policy lacks consistency.

In the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, U.S. Indo-Pacific strategist Jack Cooper wrote that while American military power remains strong, its broader strategic integration has weakened. In an article titled “Asia After America,” he argued that policy shifts between administrations and the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership have left gaps in regional economic leadership.

Cooper said the issue is not U.S. withdrawal but uncertainty over long-term strategic continuity. For allies, he wrote, the question is who shapes the regional order beyond crisis intervention.

Meanwhile, China has continued expanding its footprint through militarization of artificial islands in the South China Sea and sustained military activity near Taiwan. Beijing is also deepening regional economic integration through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Belt and Road Initiative, often referred to as the New Silk Road.

South Korea sits at the center of these tensions. Its security rests on its alliance with the United States, while China remains its largest trading partner. Key sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and artificial intelligence are directly exposed to U.S.-China competition.

Jung Seong-jang, vice president of the Sejong Institute, said in an interview that a Taiwan contingency could directly affect South Korea by disrupting critical sea lanes of communication.

A 2023 report by the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy found that 33.27% of South Korea’s maritime trade passes through or near the Taiwan Strait. The institute estimated that disruption of major shipping routes in the area could cause economic losses of about 445.2 billion won ($334 million) per day, based on current exchange rates.

Jung cautioned that direct South Korean military involvement in protecting sea lanes could heighten tensions with China, while North Korea might exploit regional instability to escalate provocations.

Joo Eun-sik, head of the Korea Institute for Strategic Studies, outlined several policy recommendations.

First, he called for deeper integration of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, including coordinated planning in maritime security, missile defense, space and cyber domains to strengthen deterrence against so-called gray-zone threats.

Second, he urged a combined economic and security strategy, strengthening supply chain cooperation and expanding investment in strategic technologies. He said South Korea’s defense industry should function not only as an export sector but as part of a broader strategic network.

Third, he emphasized maritime capabilities, describing sea routes from the Strait of Malacca through the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait as vital to South Korea’s economy. Expanding blue-water naval operations, submarine forces, maritime patrol and unmanned systems, he said, is essential.

Finally, he highlighted the need to build strategic autonomy within the alliance framework by investing in independent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, space monitoring systems and layered missile defense.

Analysts say the Indo-Pacific order remains unsettled. Whether South Korea becomes a passive bystander or an active architect of its own strategy may depend on how effectively it integrates security, industry and technology into a coherent national plan.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260218010005435

Feb. 5 (Asia Today) — Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant prospect. It is rapidly advancing into areas once considered uniquely human, including translation, medical diagnosis, law and content creation. With the possibility of human-level general AI now openly discussed, its impact is widely viewed as greater than any previous technological breakthrough.

Optimists foresee a long-awaited utopia. Self-driving cars dominate roads, AI assistants handle household chores and administrative work, doctors deliver more precise care with AI support, and teachers focus on personalized education. Like electricity or the internet, AI is expected to function as a general-purpose technology that raises productivity across the entire economy. Some forecasts suggest it could add about one percentage point to annual productivity growth over the next decade, potentially accelerating research and development and sustaining long-term economic expansion.

History, however, offers a more complex picture. General-purpose technologies often depress productivity in their early stages because firms and workers need time to adapt and reorganize. This so-called productivity J-curve may also apply to AI, as high implementation costs and training requirements delay gains and concentrate benefits among a limited number of firms and industries.

More immediate concerns are emerging in labor markets. Automation is already replacing clerical and repetitive tasks, while mid-skilled jobs are shrinking. As AI evolves from generative models to autonomous agents and physical systems, even highly educated workers may struggle to find stable employment. A small group with advanced AI skills may enjoy rising wages, while many others face job insecurity, raising fears of a society where algorithms dominate and humans are treated as expendable.

The debate over whether AI leads to utopia or dystopia ultimately centers on a single question: will AI replace humans. The answer lies in understanding the fundamental differences between artificial and human intelligence. AI excels at processing vast data and making predictions, but humans interpret context, make judgments under uncertainty and weigh ethics and values. Humans also build trust through empathy, communication and responsibility.

What matters most in the AI era is not intelligence itself but wisdom – the capacity to reflect on purpose, distinguish right from wrong and respect others. Rather than competing with AI, humans must cultivate complementary abilities that guide technology in constructive directions.

The future shaped by the AI revolution remains open. Its outcome depends on whether individuals and societies can develop the knowledge, skills and wisdom suited to this era. Continuous learning is essential, as is education that moves beyond test scores to nurture curiosity, critical thinking, ethics and responsibility.

At the societal level, education systems must shift away from standardized knowledge delivery. As AI handles information retrieval and analysis, priorities should include creativity, problem definition, collaboration and lifelong learning. Universities need closer alignment with labor market needs, while labor systems must become more flexible and competency-based.

Vocational training and retraining are equally urgent. In an age of rapid job transformation, a single education cannot last a lifetime. Governments, businesses and schools must cooperate to support mid-career workers and vulnerable groups. At the same time, governance frameworks ensuring transparency, accountability and fairness in AI use are essential for building public trust.

Artificial intelligence can expand human capabilities rather than replace them. True competitiveness in the AI era will come not from algorithms alone, but from the intellectual synergy created when humans and AI work together. What is needed now is not abstract optimism or fear, but deliberate investment in people.

Lee Jong-hwa is a chair professor of economics at Korea University. The views expressed are the author’s own.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260205010002059

How did a gay hockey romance made by a little-known Canadian streamer become a global cultural phenomenon?

The answer, as it turns out, was by leaning into female and queer audiences. Since the debut last November of “Heated Rivalry,” which chronicles the clandestine love story between two fierce hockey rivals, the drama series from Bell Media’s Crave has emerged as an unlikely success story, defying a broader industry trend of media consolidation and waning commitments to diversity in Hollywood.

The mastermind behind the show’s success is Jacob Tierney, who read author Rachel Reid’s “Game Changers” series during the COVID-19 pandemic and then optioned all of the books after reading a Washington Post story about the proliferation of romance novels. After writing a pilot on spec, he approached the executives at Crave — where he had previously produced “Letterkenny,” “Shoresy” and “Canada’s Drag Race” — about green-lighting a series. From the outset, the gay writer-producer had a clear idea of how he wanted to adapt the “smutty” story for TV, starting with casting relative newcomers Hudson Williams and Connor Storrie as Shane Hollander and Ilya Rozanov, respectively.

“Jacob was very open to our feedback, but his common [refrain] back to us was, ‘We need to be true to the source material because the built-in fan base will expect certain things from us, and that includes the appearances of these actors and their ages,’” says Justin Stockman, Bell Media’s VP of content development and programming. “He’s like, ‘We found them. These are the people from the book.’ And that’s where we had to trust him.”

Brendan Brady, Tierney’s producing partner through their Accent Aigu Entertainment banner, notes that the Canadian TV model diverges from the American one, in that the producer retains ownership of the IP while collecting a licensing fee from the broadcaster. To fund the series, Tierney and Brady reinvested their personal fees to cover about 10% of the budget, while another 30% was sourced from tax credits. This included the Canada Media Fund, a resource derived from government and industry contributions that national broadcasters can allocate at their discretion. The rest of the financing usually comes from third parties.

But Tierney recalls that the notes from potential financiers did not align with his creative vision. Some wanted to delay the graphic depictions of gay sex and expand the world to include more characters. Someone even suggested introducing Rose Landry (Sophie Nélisse) earlier and putting her in a love triangle with Shane and Ilya, because they believed “this show won’t work without a female entry point,” Tierney recalls. Ultimately, Bell Media opted against a co-financier, instead covering the remaining costs through its new distribution branch, Sphere Abacus. But, Brady says, the budget was still “far south” of CA$5 million (approximately $3.6 million) per episode. “It’s so much less than that, it’s almost silly,” Tierney adds.

Sean Cohan, an American executive who worked at A&E Network and Nielsen before being appointed president of Bell Media, does not think “Heated Rivalry” could have been made in the U.S. For starters, “green-lighting” stateside is a “slower” process; Tierney could have been stuck in development hell for years. The show also contains numerous Canadian references — cottage country, loons, McGill University — which would have not made sense outside of the Great White North.

From left, stars Connor Storrie and Hudson Williams, creator Jacob Tierney and executive producer Brendan Brady on the set of “Heated Rivalry.”

(Sabrina Lantos)

For his part, Tierney doesn’t believe that “Heated Rivalry” would have even been made at another Canadian network or streamer. “There’s lots of ways to put your fingers in and get them sticky and screw things up, and these executives wanted the same show that we wanted to make and they supported us 100%,” he says. Those executives were so confident in the show’s success that they decided to move up the premiere date from February to late November to take advantage of the increase in viewership around the holidays. The accelerated release schedule meant that Tierney delivered his cut of the Season 1 finale a week and a half before it aired.

At the time of our interview, Tierney was already trying to break the story for Season 2, which he and Brady say will not premiere until spring 2027. “As much as I appreciate how rabid and interested people are at this point, the first season worked because I trusted my gut with this, and I’m going to do that again,” Tierney says.

Like the audience, Bell Media executives are waiting with bated breath for the next chapter of “Heated Rivalry.” And given that Accent Aigu has optioned all of the “Game Changer” novels (including Reid’s forthcoming “Unrivaled”), everything is on the table — more episodes or seasons, one-off specials, maybe even a spin-off. “We’re open to anything that keeps the quality where it was, but also brings our show back as quickly as we can,” Stockman says. (HBO Max will not be involved financially and remains merely a distributor.)

Tierney declines to reveal whether he will split “The Long Game” into one or two seasons, but he volunteers that he does not see himself making more than six episodes per season. “I don’t need to do 10. I would always rather tighten the belt than get loosey-goosey,” says Tierney, who will have a co-writer for Season 2 but continue to direct all the episodes himself. “I would rather be like, ‘Let’s see how much story we can pack into these episodes.’”

“We want everybody to be left yearning,” Brady adds. “That’s what everybody loves about this show. Less is more!”

“Heated Rivalry” may center on Shane and Ilya, but there will “absolutely” be “diversions” to other characters in the canon. “Just like you can’t tell the story without Scott Hunter, you can’t really tell the story without Troy Barrett,” Tierney says, alluding to a character from Reid’s books who is yet to appear in the TV series. And while there may be a lot more incoming calls about higher-profile casting, he adds, “We need Canadian talent, and we love Canadian talent. It’s not a burden, but it’s also something we literally have to do to get our financing.”

For Cohan, “Heated Rivalry” is valuable proof of concept as he attempts to convince more Canadian creators to return to their roots, regardless of where they now live in the world. “It certainly helps to feel like we’ve got a dramatic illustration, a data point — a pretty good one too — to say, ‘Yeah, look, we Canadians, not just Bell, can make great, global and profitable [shows], and we can do it by being authentic,’” Cohan says.