Damages for Trump, a Peace Prize for Xi?

 

Rethinking Responsibility in a War That Should Never Have Happened

War always begins with a simple question: Who started it?
But perhaps the more important question is: Who stopped it?

In the spring of 2026, the military confrontation between the United States and Iran pushed the world to the brink of a wider conflict. What began as a targeted strike quickly escalated into a geopolitical crisis with global consequences. Energy markets trembled, shipping routes faced disruption, and financial systems reacted with immediate volatility. The Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical chokepoints—became a symbol not just of regional tension, but of systemic vulnerability.

At the center of this escalation stood Donald Trump. His administration’s decision to pursue direct military action against Iranian infrastructure marked a decisive turn away from containment toward confrontation. The rhetoric that followed suggested not restraint, but readiness for further escalation.

And yet, the war did not end because of American strategy.

The War Was Initiated by the United States—but Not Concluded by It

When a ceasefire was eventually reached, it did not emerge from battlefield dominance or unilateral diplomatic success. Instead, it reflected mounting international pressure and third-party intervention.

Most notably, Xi Jinping played a critical role in facilitating negotiations. Even Trump himself acknowledged that China had helped bring Iran to the negotiating table.

China’s involvement was not military, but strategic and economic. Through its longstanding ties with Iran and its position within global supply chains, Beijing exercised leverage that Washington could not—or would not—deploy. The result was a temporary ceasefire that prevented further escalation, even if it did not resolve the underlying conflict.

This distinction matters.

The United States may have possessed the capacity to initiate war, but it did not demonstrate the capacity to end it alone.

The Illusion of “Total Victory”

Following the ceasefire, Trump declared a “total and complete victory.”
Such declarations, however, reveal more about political narrative than geopolitical reality.

The ceasefire was fragile, limited in scope, and left core issues—nuclear development, sanctions, and regional influence—entirely unresolved. It was not a resolution, but a pause.

This raises a fundamental question:
What does it mean to “win” a war that should never have been fought?

On Responsibility: Beyond Leadership, Toward Collective Accountability

It is, of course, legally implausible to demand damages from a sitting or former head of state for initiating military action. It is even more implausible to extend such claims to an entire electorate.

And yet, as a matter of political philosophy, the notion of accountability cannot end with leadership alone.

Democratic systems do not produce leaders in isolation. They are the result of collective choice, institutional endorsement, and political culture. To say this is not to assign legal liability, but to recognize that political responsibility is, in some sense, distributed.

In that context, the idea of “damages for Trump” should be understood not as a literal legal demand, but as a metaphor for the immense costs—economic, geopolitical, and human—that followed from decisions made at the highest level of power.

And those costs were not confined to the United States. They were borne globally.

The Irony of the Nobel Peace Prize

Against this backdrop, it is difficult to ignore the irony of discussions that have, at times, linked Trump with the Nobel Peace Prize.

If such an award is meant to recognize contributions to peace, then the criteria must be applied consistently.

In this case, it was not the architect of escalation who prevented further conflict, but an external actor who intervened to stabilize the situation. Xi Jinping’s role in facilitating the ceasefire may not fit traditional narratives of Western-led diplomacy, but it undeniably contributed to de-escalation.

This is not an endorsement of any broader political system.
It is simply an acknowledgment of a specific outcome.

If peace is measured by the ability to prevent war from expanding, then the question of recognition becomes unavoidable.

A World Beyond Single-Actor Control

What this episode ultimately reveals is a transformation in global order.

The era in which a single state could both initiate and resolve major conflicts is fading. Power is becoming more distributed, and outcomes increasingly depend on interactions among multiple actors with competing interests.

This has implications not only for geopolitics, but for how we assign responsibility and recognition.

Who is accountable for war?
Who deserves credit for peace?

These are no longer questions with simple answers.

Conclusion: Rethinking Justice in an Interdependent World

“Damages for Trump, a Peace Prize for Xi” may sound provocative.
But beneath that provocation lies a serious argument.

Wars impose costs that extend far beyond national borders. Decisions made by a single administration can destabilize entire regions and disrupt global systems. At the same time, the resolution of such crises increasingly depends on actors outside the traditional centers of power.

If the international community is to respond coherently to future conflicts, it must move beyond simplistic narratives of victory and defeat. It must develop frameworks for assigning responsibility that reflect the interconnected nature of modern geopolitics.

And perhaps most importantly, it must recognize that peace is not the product of rhetoric—but of restraint, negotiation, and the willingness to step back from the brink.

The Reconfiguration of Cultural Power: A Study on the Transformation of Global Influence through the Concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift

2026 BTS' Comeback Concert in Gwangwhamun Square, Seoul

I. Introduction

In the twenty-first century, the mechanisms through which power operates in the international order are undergoing a significant transformation. Traditionally, state influence has been defined by military and economic capabilities. However, the expansion of digital networks and the global cultural industry has elevated a different form of power—namely, cultural persuasion and emotional mobilization—as a central element. This shift goes beyond a mere transformation of industrial structures; it calls for a fundamental redefinition of the very concept of power itself.

In this regard, the concept of soft power proposed by Joseph Nye continues to provide a crucial theoretical framework. Nye defines power as the ability to shape the behavior of others not through coercion or payment, but through attraction.^1 However, contemporary cultural phenomena demonstrate that such attraction operates not merely at the level of “image” or “values,” but more deeply through emotion and participation.

This study seeks to analyze how cultural power is constructed and diffused in contemporary society by comparing the concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift, and to examine the political and economic implications of these dynamics.

II. Theoretical Framework: Soft Power and Emotional Communities

Nye’s concept of soft power identifies culture, political values, and foreign policy as its primary components.^2 More recent scholarship, however, emphasizes emotion and affect as key mechanisms underlying cultural power. Sara Ahmed argues that emotions do not reside solely within individuals, but circulate through social relations and contribute to the formation of collective bodies.^3

From this perspective, cultural content is not merely an object of consumption, but a mechanism through which groups are formed via emotional identification. This insight resonates with Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined communities,” in which collective identity is constructed through shared symbolic frameworks rather than direct interaction.^4 Contemporary fandoms represent a new form of transnational community that operates beyond the traditional state-centered structure of power.

III. A Comparative Analysis of Fandom Structures

The fandom of BTS, known as ARMY, constitutes a transnational network characterized by a strong collective identity. Fans function not merely as consumers but as participatory agents who share symbols, narratives, and coordinated practices. This structure is reinforced through digital platforms, facilitating collective action and accelerating the global diffusion of culture.^5

By contrast, the fandom surrounding Taylor Swift is characterized by identification rooted in personal narrative. Her music centers on individual experience and emotion, allowing fans to construct and affirm their own identities through engagement with her work. In this context, concerts function as spaces in which individual emotional experiences are collectively expressed.

This distinction has significant implications for the diffusion of cultural power. BTS strengthens network-based expansion through collective identification, whereas Taylor Swift cultivates deep emotional influence through individualized immersion.

IV. Economic Impact and the Expansion of the Cultural Industry

Large-scale concerts should be understood not merely as cultural events, but as complex economic phenomena that exert direct influence on both urban and national economies. In the case of BTS, their economic impact has been evaluated as exceeding the conventional analytical scope of the cultural industry.

Notably, the BTS comeback concert held in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, in 2026—despite being a free event—generated substantial economic effects. Some analyses estimate that the concert produced approximately $177 million (approximately 230 billion KRW) in direct economic impact,^6 while further projections by the Korea Culture and Tourism Institute and related organizations suggest that a single BTS concert can generate up to 1.2 trillion KRW in total economic spillover effects.^7

Moreover, recent financial and industry analyses indicate that when including the subsequent world tour, the total economic impact may exceed 3 trillion KRW.^8 Such figures illustrate how a single cultural event can exert influence at the level of national industry.

These economic effects cannot be explained solely in terms of ticket revenue. Rather, they emerge through a multi-layered structure.

First, there is a dramatic increase in tourism and mobility demand. Cities hosting BTS concerts experience sharp rises in air travel, accommodation, and transportation demand, with some regions reporting exponential increases in search volume and bookings.^9 This indicates that concerts function as catalysts for global mobility rather than merely local events.

Second, there is the expansion of consumer expenditure. Concertgoers spend not only on tickets, but also on lodging, food, merchandise, and local consumption, typically generating economic activity several times greater than the ticket price itself.^10 This effect is further amplified by the transnational mobility of BTS’s global fanbase.

Third, there is the spillover effect across the broader cultural industry. Concerts extend beyond one-time events into album sales, streaming, platform-based content, and brand collaborations, thereby generating sustained economic value. BTS has been estimated to contribute trillions of KRW annually to the Korean economy, representing a measurable share of national GDP.^11

Fourth, there is the enhancement of national brand and image. BTS concerts increase global attention and positive sentiment toward South Korea, leading to increased tourism, diplomatic interest, and investment in cultural industries, thereby producing long-term economic benefits.

Taken together, BTS concerts should be understood not as mere “cultural consumption events,” but as integrated economic systems combining tourism, consumption, industry, and national branding. Notably, such economic effects occur even in the absence of ticket pricing, as demonstrated by free performances.

This indicates that economic value is generated not by price, but by the mobility and participation of fandom, as well as by cultural influence itself. In other words, the fundamental asset of BTS concerts lies not in “price,” but in concentrated attention and participation.

In this respect, BTS’s economic impact may be compared to that of Taylor Swift. While Swift’s tours also stimulate local economies, BTS tends to generate broader spillover effects due to the combination of global fan mobility and national image enhancement.

Ultimately, these developments indicate that the cultural industry has transitioned from a peripheral sector to a core driver of national economic growth, with BTS representing one of the most striking examples of this transformation.

V. The Relationship between Cultural Power and State Power

The expansion of cultural power is reshaping its relationship with traditional forms of state power. While military force and geopolitical strategy remain central elements of international relations, they are increasingly accompanied by high costs and structural instability. The recent military actions involving the United States and Israel against Iran illustrate these limitations in stark terms.^12

Beginning in late February 2026, U.S.–Israeli airstrikes against Iran and subsequent retaliatory attacks by Iran have escalated into a broader regional conflict, generating significant instability in the global economy and security environment. Iranian missile strikes have extended beyond Israeli territory to surrounding regions and international military bases, in some cases penetrating established defense systems.

Simultaneously, Iran has taken measures to restrict or threaten closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes—thereby delivering a direct shock to global energy markets. This has resulted in rising oil prices and increased volatility across global supply chains and financial markets.

Such military conflicts are not confined to regional disputes. The deployment of long-range missiles, warnings regarding extended strike capabilities reaching Europe, and the involvement of multiple states indicate that the international order as a whole is exposed to heightened uncertainty.

Furthermore, the conflict entails substantial economic and environmental costs. Massive carbon emissions, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the exacerbation of both climate change and humanitarian crises highlight the broader consequences of military power.

These developments reveal the structural limitations of traditional state power. While military force may provide short-term deterrence or tactical advantage, it simultaneously generates global instability, rising energy costs, and escalating geopolitical tensions. In this sense, the exercise of power may paradoxically amplify uncertainty and systemic risk.

By contrast, cultural power operates through fundamentally different mechanisms. Cultural phenomena such as BTS expand not through coercion or threat, but through voluntary participation and emotional resonance. This form of power can be characterized by non-coerciveness, voluntary engagement, and emotion-driven diffusion.

Unlike military power, cultural power does not generate social instability; rather, it fosters connection, stability, and positive global perception. Large-scale cultural events stimulate urban economies, facilitate international exchange, and enhance national image.

At this juncture, the fundamental distinction between cultural and state power becomes evident. The former diffuses through participation, while the latter operates through control. The former connects emotions, while the latter often produces tension.

Accordingly, what matters in the contemporary international order is not merely how much military force a state possesses, but how effectively it can generate voluntary participation and shared emotional engagement.

In this context, cultural phenomena such as K-pop present a new model of non-coercive and sustainable influence. This suggests that cultural power is emerging as an independent axis of global influence, gradually relativizing traditional forms of state power.

VI. Conclusion

The concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift exemplify how cultural power operates in contemporary society. While the two artists differ in their modes of fandom formation and influence, both construct systems of power grounded in emotion and participation.

This transformation necessitates a redefinition of power itself. Whereas power in the past was based on coercion and control, contemporary power is increasingly constituted through attraction, empathy, and voluntary engagement.

Ultimately, what matters in the modern international order is not how forcefully one can impose influence, but how effectively one can inspire people to participate willingly.