Keep your friends close: Pakistan’s shifting role

Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. I'm your host, Jason Palmer. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. This week, new restrictions will clamp down on the makers of internet porn, but they're not being imposed by a government. It's credit card and financial companies that are increasingly and reluctantly plugging the gaps left by regulators. And if you haven't heard of Squid Game yet, you soon will. The series' wild success shows that Netflix can give local productions a global audience, how resonant the topic of social inequality is, and just how much cultural cachet South Korea has. But first— A suicide bomber struck on Friday at a Shia mosque in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. The attack killed more than 50 people, making it the deadliest since American forces withdrew from the country in August. Islamic State took responsibility for the atrocity, suggesting that the Taliban's grip on power isn't as strong as it might have hoped. That power vacuum poses real problems for lots of interested parties. Not least neighboring Pakistan. Its prime minister, Imran Khan, said instability across the border worried him.

"That too will impact Pakistan. It will mean an unstable, a chaotic Afghanistan, ideal place for terrorists. And that is our worry." Pakistan's international relations are complicated.

It partnered with America for much of the past two decades, helping with logistics and intelligence in Afghanistan's war. But at the same time, it provided a haven and training to leaders of the Taliban, a point that John Simpson of the BBC pressed last month when speaking with Prime Minister Khan.

But the Taliban are really a Pakistani creation, aren't they? Absolutely not. Taliban were creation of the environment after the Soviets left. The warlords started fighting each other. And in that chaos emerged Taliban. And why did Taliban emerge? Because they gave people a semblance of rule of law.

It is perhaps no more than a semblance, with terror attacks by the day in Afghanistan. America's departure and the Taliban's takeover have changed the order in a neighbor that now finds itself out of sorts.

It's both good and bad for Pakistan. Good in the sense that this is what the generals who run Pakistan actually wanted. And it's bad for Pakistan in the sense that now there are Muslim extremists in power next door. So it puts Pakistan in a difficult place.

Max Rodenbeck is The Economist's South Asia bureau chief.

And it's far from clear whether the sort of tactical advantage of chasing out all the other players, which is what Pakistan has wanted all this time, is going to turn into a strategic advantage for Pakistan because now it's sort of saddled with some kind of responsibility for what happens in Afghanistan.

And fundamentally, the issue here is that Pakistan was a key backer of the Taliban.

Yes, absolutely. I mean, the Taliban, the very word Taliban, it means students, and the leadership of the Taliban were students in Pakistani academies, Islamic schools. So it goes right back to the origins of the Taliban. You know, Pakistan provided a safe haven for the Taliban when they were under pressure. A lot of the families of leaders lived in Pakistan. There's also been COVID support from Pakistani intelligence, the ISI. They've been supporting the Taliban covertly for years. So there's a very, very close relationship.

Is that to say then that Pakistan exerts some kind of control over the Taliban even now?

No, I wouldn't say control. I mean, the Taliban are not full allies to Pakistan, but certainly Pakistan has more leverage over the Taliban than any other group. Does.

And how does that fit into Pakistan's internal politics?

Well, it's complicated internally because on the one hand, there's a democracy that runs, whereas the real power actually rests with the military. So, you know, Pakistan is full of its own contradictions, and Afghanistan may have an influence on its internal politics that is quite negative. I mean, already there's been a certain uptick, for example, in Islamist terror inside Pakistan since the overthrow of the regime in Kabul next door. But Pakistan is used to these kind of contradictions. And, you know, in some ways, Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan himself is a man of contradictions. On the one hand, very cosmopolitan, and the other hand, he's a sort of a Muslim conservative. Media, social media.

And how do all of those contradictions then figure into Pakistan's relations with the rest of the world?

Well, Pakistan has not been a solid partner to anyone except for China, its closest ally and friend, actually. But at the same time, Pakistan has been an important player in sort of Western and particularly American strategy. It was crucial in the so-called, you know, War on Terror. It's been crucial in trying to track down and eliminate some of the most radical terrorist groups. But at the same time, it was Pakistan that harbored Osama bin Laden. So it's a complex mix of things. I mean, the fact is that Pakistan's actual priorities, its own strategic priorities are very different from the West's. Its number one priority is India, its eternal enemy India. And this is what really concentrates minds in Pakistan. And it's the failure to understand that Pakistan was thinking about something else, which is one of the reasons why there's often trouble between Pakistan and its Western would-be friends.

And what does that mean now for Pakistan's relationship with America now that America is kind of off the stage in Afghanistan?

Well, I think, you know, for America, there's a huge relief in not having to be reliant on Pakistan because during the whole time that America was engaged in Afghanistan, it needed Pakistan for, you know, overflights as the only corridor through which you could reach, you know, landlocked Afghanistan. You have to pass through Pakistan. There's no other way to get there. So America needed Pakistan in order to pursue its policies in Afghanistan. It no longer needs Pakistan in that way. But that doesn't mean that Pakistan isn't important. It's a nuclear-armed nation. It's in a state of sort of nuclear tension with India next door. And, you know, conflict between those two countries would be a disaster for them and for the world. So that's important. At the same time, Pakistan's influence over the Taliban is important. I mean, there will be other counterterror needs that the world has. No one wants to see, including Pakistan, Afghanistan become a springboard for global Islamist terror again. And at the same time, there's a kind of interest from the Pakistanis in working with the West because I think even Pakistan's generals, they don't really want to be 100% reliant on one country, China, which is their main military backer and supplier of weapons and so on and so forth, and also economic support to Pakistan.

Does that mean that America and the West can, should rely on Pakistan now?

To the extent that people are still worried about the outcomes in Afghanistan, yes, absolutely. Pakistan is the conduit to not only physical conduit to reach Afghanistan, but also the closest country country to the Taliban leadership. So if you want to moderate the Taliban, you know, it's useful to work through Pakistan. So I think, you know, Pakistan remains an important country and the world will be wanting to work with Pakistan. But I think this previous situation where Pakistan was doing one thing with one hand and doing something quite different with the other hand, i.e., you know, supporting the Taliban with one hand while pretending to help the world hunt down Islamist extremists, that will no longer be possible to play both games at once.

And overall, do you think that renewed situation for Pakistan will lead to more stability in the region, more clarity about all these relationships?

Well, it could. That would be the optimum outcome. You know, if Pakistan is now more relaxed about Afghanistan next door, perhaps it can take a more cool and useful, productive attitude towards India. That's what would really be good for the region, is to have some kind of détente or cooling of the, the, uh, squabble between India and Pakistan. If that's the outcome in the end, then the whole world will benefit.

Max, thank you very much for joining us.

Jason, it's always a pleasure.

This week, MasterCard is introducing a new policy. It won't process payments from porn websites unless they confirm the ages and identities of people in their pictures and videos. It's a big change to the way an often anonymous industry has operated. And it's more proof that payment firms, credit card companies, and banks are choosing to step into a gatekeeper role that no one else seems to want.

This is part of a broader debate, really, about who should regulate what happens online.

Tom Wainwright is The Economist's media editor.

We've seen lots of arguments about whether Facebook and Twitter and other social networks are doing the right thing in banning particular users or particular content. Web hosting companies have come in for some of the same criticism for taking down particular platforms. And it seems financial companies are the latest industry to wade into this debate about what should go online and who should make those decisions.

And in what way are they wading in?

Well, they've been getting involved gradually for a few years. You go back to the turn of the century and they've had more responsibility in things like anti-money laundering. And from that, they grew into a regulatory role in industries like online gambling and the cannabis industry and so on. The latest one that we've seen is online pornography, and on Friday Mastercard, which is one of the two big card companies, is introducing a new set of rules governing how porn websites should work. And it includes things like looking at all the footage before publishing it, so that's aimed at the so-called tube sites where people can upload their own content. And it says that the sites should verify the ID of the people who upload the videos and the people who appear in them as well.

And it's these adult sites that these financial companies are focusing on now?

It's not just industries like the sex business. There are kind of less exciting industries as well where this stuff is happening. Not so long ago, Mastercard came up with a new set of rules governing how free trials could take place. They said that companies had to basically tell customers before the first payment was taken, which is something that goes beyond what the law requires. And we saw, for example, Following the riots at the US Capitol earlier this year, a couple of banks said that they were going to stop dealing with Donald Trump.

So it's not just payment firms and credit cards that are, that are taking a stand here. It's banks as well.

I think in banking it's slightly different because there's enough competition in banking, there's enough different banks that it's not such a problem if a bank says that it's not going to deal with an individual or a business. I think in payment networks, i.e., you know, credit cards, it's a bit trickier because Visa and Mastercard handle 90% of of payments in the West. And so if they block out a website or a company or an industry, it's very, very difficult for that company to really continue on the same basis. And so the credit card firms in particular have enormous clout in deciding what goes online. And if they decide that particular types of websites are not going to be allowed, as for example Mastercard is with these new rules for adult websites, it has a very big impact on those industries.

And why is it that financial companies feel they need to step in at all here?

Well, they say that their priority is making sure that only legal content is paid for and processed, but deciding where that line is and what's legal and illegal is not always straightforward, and there are many areas, including online pornography, where the law has arguably failed to keep pace with the speed of change in the industry. Online porn is pretty different now in the days of iPhones than it was 10 years ago when more of this stuff was professionally made. So in areas where the law hasn't really been updated, card companies and banks find themselves having to slightly fill in the blanks where legislators have not yet acted.

And you say this is about financial companies wanting to ensure that only legal content is paid for. Isn't there more to it than that, though?

It's difficult because I think they also face reputational concerned. You know, there's a lot of lobbying by campaigners who want to try and target financial companies as a way to reform these industries, because they found that targeting politicians sometimes doesn't get them very far because Congress is so often gridlocked. And they've also found that if they target financial companies, then their rules, of course, apply internationally. So campaigners of all sorts, and not just anti-porn campaigners, we've had anti-far-right campaigners as well have targeted financial institutions, banks, credit card companies, trying to persuade them to drop particular clients, even if what those clients are doing isn't strictly illegal, because they found that it's a good way to try and stop this kind of content and these kinds of people from airing their views online.

And do you get a feeling for how much the financial companies themselves walking this careful line that you describe resent being thrust into that position of gatekeepers, of censors?

I think it's complicated because I think in some ways they probably feel pretty proud to be helping with law enforcement and helping crack down on, on some pretty bad stuff. But I think they also feel a certain amount of kind of discomfort that they've been handed this role as gatekeepers. And it reminds me of conversations that I've had with people who work in social media who don't feel all that wild about this role that they have in having to determine what kind of misinformation should be allowed and, you know, make these difficult calls on whether people should be allowed to say that face masks don't work or hydroxychloroquine is a great cure for COVID and that kind of thing. You know, they kind of feel uncomfortable making those decisions. And I think it's similar for card companies and payment networks, that they've been handed this role which sees some people accuse them of playing at being the kind of moral police, and other people accuse them of enabling wrongdoing and processing the payments of some pretty bad people. It's also expensive for them. Just as social networks employ thousands of people as moderators, banks and card companies employ thousands of people fighting financial crime and looking at risk and compliance. So it's a kind of moral headache for them, but also a financial cost involved.

And presumably when the likes of MasterCard takes this kind of action, the politicians welcome it. It takes the heat off of them somewhat.

I think politicians are in this funny position where they're increasingly waking up to the fact that private companies wield rather a lot of power online, and a lot of them are vocally unhappy about this. But I think what they need to realize is that in many of these areas, this is regulatory work which they themselves, the politicians themselves, could and perhaps should get involved in. And I think sitting on their hands and expecting profit-maximizing companies to make decisions that are in society's best interests is naive, really. And I think people who are unhappy with the decisions that private companies are taking about what's allowed online, maybe those politicians should think about taking those decisions themselves instead.

Tom, thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you.

Civil unrest has been known to break out on the streets of Paris, but not this kind. People trying to get into a pop-up store ended up in a brawl. It was the official shop linked to a new Netflix drama, a South Korean series that seems to have taken over the world.

Our next guests are the stars of the biggest The most popular television show in the world, Squid Game.

Squid Game?

Squid Game in real life.

Squid Game is a South Korean TV show that follows a group of pretty unfortunate people: unemployed former car factory worker who's now a gambling addict, a North Korean refugee, and a Pakistani migrant worker, amongst others.

Lena Shipper is The Economist's Seoul bureau chief.

They've ended up fighting for nearly $40 million in prize money and unfortunately also their lives. In a very violent version of traditional Korean children's games. [SPEAKING KOREAN] While they're doing that, they're being watched by rich spectators in embroidered robes who hang out in this VIP lounge. And it's currently the most streamed show on Netflix in, I think, all but a handful of the markets where the company's active.

And why is Squid Game so popular then?

I think there's two things. One is the theme, and the other is Netflix. One Korean critic here speculates that the combination of very violent entertainment with a sort of incredibly obvious and incredibly on-trend critique of capitalism explains the show's appeal, at least to Western audiences, because we're kind of used to that stuff from things like Hunger Games, an American production set in a dystopian world of incredibly grave social injustice. And the other thing is Netflix's strategy, which involves obviously presenting this stuff to everybody who opens their Netflix account looking for something to watch on kind of a random Thursday night. And then they have a strategy of dubbing and subtitling all their productions in dozens of languages, so it's easily accessible to anybody.

And what do South Koreans themselves make of all this buzz around Squid Game?

In South Korea, the sort of very cynical take on the meritocracy that's inherent in the show has resonated, I think, because one sort of plot twist is that all the main characters in the show have had very little luck in life and society sort of outside the game. And then the game conceit is that they get one final chance to compete on equal terms, which obviously also turns out to be rigged. And that's rung pretty true for people who are struggling with things like unaffordable housing, very sluggish labor market, fallout from the pandemic. Politicians have latched on it. They've started referring to Squid Game whenever they're attacking their opponents. But after a fairly brief spell at the top of the Korean Netflix charts, Squid Game has been replaced by Hometown Cha-Cha-Cha, which is a pretty saccharine K-drama.

So is that to say it's not as popular in South Korea, even if it has taken off around the world?

People I've spoken to in Seoul are pretty amused by the global craze. They don't really get it. One young woman, for instance, told me that she was very disturbed by watching her childhood games depicted as this brutal struggle for survival and was very bemused by the fact that it had just taken off in this massive way. And the more kind of professional watchers, um, you know, South Korean film critics and reviewers were pretty underwhelmed by it. They found the characters clichéd, they thought the plot was unconvincing, the violence was gratuitous, and the whole thing looked similar, in their view, to existing films and shows in the same vein, like the Japanese Battle Royale, for instance.

And yet the numbers would suggest otherwise. This is already something of a global phenomenon. What do you think the legacy of the show will be?

I mean, I reckon it's too early to tell what the legacy will be. It might just be a passing trend. It's a big deal now, but maybe 2 weeks from now, I know there'll be a new big deal in town. The director, Hwang Dong-hyuk, he said he's unsure whether he's gonna make another season because the first one took him ages and people kept rejecting it for a very long time before it became this massive hit. And also he was very stressed out by the whole creative process, so we don't actually know if there's going to be a follow-up. I think what's certain is that the embrace of Squid Game is a reflection of South Korea's growing cultural power on the global stage. I mean, this has been a thing for some years now. I know we've had BTS last year you had Parasite winning the Oscar. And I think South Korean culture in general, be it music, video games, TV, film, is already huge. And I think shows like Squid Game just are really proving that there's still records to break and room to grow.

Lena, thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you very much for having me, Jason.

This episode of The Intelligence. If you like us, leave us a rating and a review, and you can subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/intelligenceoffer. The link is in the show notes. See you back here tomorrow.