Geopolitical Futures 기사에 대한 독자의 비판과 답변

다음은 2025년 4월 7일자 Geopolitical Futures 기사 「The Geopolitics of Tariffs」의 번역입니다.

---

비판: “조지의 트럼프 인식은 순진하고 편향적이며, 트럼프에게 과도한 신용을 준다”

답변:
나는 오랫동안 주장해왔듯이, 대통령이든 심지어 독재자든, 이들은 당대의 현실과 그 시대의 대중이 그것을 어떻게 경험하느냐를 정확히 이해했기 때문에 등장합니다. 그들은 자신을 그 시대에 맞게 꾸미지만, 결국은 시대와 민주적 과정의 산물입니다. 트럼프는 미국 국민이 선출한 인물이며, 그와 함께 의회도 구성되었습니다. 국민은 그 안에서 어떤 매력을 보았기 때문에 그를 선택한 것입니다.

트럼프를 무능하거나 미치광이로 보는 시각이 일부 진실일 수 있지만, 그것은 곧 민주주의에 대한 공격이기도 합니다. 선거 전부터 트럼프가 어떤 인물인지는 명확했으며, 그는 민주적 절차를 통해 선출되었습니다. 물론, 국민의 상당 부분이 그를 혐오하는 것도 민주적인 표현입니다. 그러나 그의 지지자들이 보는 트럼프와 반대자들이 보는 트럼프는 전혀 다릅니다. 그렇기에 그는 “우리 국민이 선택한” 지도자인 것입니다.

프랭클린 D. 루스벨트 역시 그의 초기 100일 동안 99건의 행정명령을 의회 승인 없이 내렸으며, 이를 반대한 대법원을 무시하고 대법관을 늘리려 시도했습니다. 당시 많은 이들은 그를 괴물로 여겼으나, 오늘날 그의 내정·외교정책은 높게 평가받고 있습니다.

나는 내 저서 『The Storm Before the Calm』에서, 50년 전 시작된 기존의 역사적 주기를 끝낼 대통령이 나타날 것이며, 그가 다음 주기를 위한 ‘폭풍’을 일으킬 것이라고 예측했습니다. 루스벨트는 당시 극심한 위기 상황에서 스스로를 가난한 자들의 친구로 포지셔닝하며, 본래 상류층이었지만 그 계층을 배신한 인물로 여겨졌습니다.

워싱턴, 잭슨, 링컨 등도 마찬가지로, 당시엔 나라를 망치는 괴물로 여겨졌습니다. 존 애덤스는 독립전쟁 당시 “국민의 1/3은 독립을 지지했고, 1/3은 영국 편이었으며, 나머지 1/3은 무관심했다”고 말했습니다. 이런 역사적 반복 속에서, 과거의 낡은 기준을 고수하려는 사람들은 항상 새로운 변화를 증오해왔습니다.

나는 트럼프를 위대한 인물이라 말할 순 없지만, 역사 속에서 당대에 욕먹던 대통령들이 훗날 위대한 인물로 평가받는 것을 보면, 어떻게 될지 예측할 수는 없습니다. 링컨조차도 당대에는 ‘문맹 원숭이’라고 불렸습니다.

결국 트럼프가 기존의 규범을 어기며 불쾌함을 유발할지라도, 그는 공화국이 50년마다 스스로를 재창조하는 과정에서 등장하는 “새로운 규범”이라 볼 수 있습니다.

---

질문: 자유무역 체제가 미국에 피해를 준다는 말이 사실인가요?

답변:
자유무역은 제2차 세계대전 이후 공산주의 소련을 견제하기 위한 도구로 등장했습니다. 유럽이 전쟁으로 황폐해진 상황에서, 미국은 자국 시장을 개방해 유럽 제품 수출을 받아들이면서 유럽 경제의 회복을 지원했습니다. 이는 경제적으로는 미국에 일정한 부담이 되었지만, 지정학적으로는 큰 이익이었습니다.

자유무역과 함께 제공된 원조는 제국이 붕괴되고 ‘제3세계’로 불린 국가들의 경제를 안정시키는 데에도 쓰였고, 미국은 이를 통해 소련의 영향력을 견제할 수 있었습니다. 냉전이 끝나고 러시아가 약화된 지금은, 더 이상 그런 부담을 감수할 지정학적 이유가 줄어들었습니다.

그러나 자유무역은 위험 요소도 큽니다. 예를 들어, 중국과의 자유무역은 값싼 노동력을 통해 미국 산업에 필요한 핵심 부품들을 저렴하게 공급받게 했지만, 이는 큰 리스크가 됩니다. 1970년대 아랍 석유 금수 조치처럼, 특정 국가의 수출이 중단되면 미국 산업 전체가 마비될 수 있기 때문입니다.

이제는 중국에서의 지진, 정치 불안, 또는 지정학적 갈등 하나만으로도 미국 경제가 타격을 입을 수 있는 구조가 되었으며, 이는 자유무역이 가져온 의존성 때문입니다. 트럼프는 이런 위험성을 줄이기 위해 관세 정책을 추진하고 있으며, 단기적으로 큰 혼란을 야기하지만, 장기적 국가 안보와 번영을 위한 시도라고 평가할 수 있습니다.

---

비판: “트럼프는 지정학도 전략도 모른다. 즉흥적이고 기회주의적이다. 동맹국을 경시하며, 미국의 달러 지배력과 무역 연합 참여를 파괴하고 있다.”

답변:
모든 외교는 본질적으로 ‘거래적(transactional)’입니다. 외교란 국가 간 균형을 찾는 과정이기 때문입니다. 냉전 체제에서의 미국 주도 외교는 지금은 구시대의 유물이 되었습니다.

예를 들어, 러시아가 우크라이나를 3년 넘게 제압하지 못하는 현실은, 러시아가 유럽을 침공할 능력이 없다는 뜻이며, 이는 나토의 존재 이유를 약화시킵니다. 유럽은 경제적으로 이미 회복되었고, 러시아의 군사력도 예전 같지 않습니다.

유럽 국가들이 트럼프의 정책을 ‘무모’하다고 보는 이유는, 이전 미국의 ‘친절한 리더십’에 익숙해졌기 때문입니다. 하지만 80년이나 된 외교 체제가 바뀌는 건 지극히 자연스러운 일입니다. 문제는 많은 지식인들이 기존의 기준에 너무 익숙해져 그 변화의 필요성을 이해하지 못한다는 점입니다.

나는 트럼프가 교양 없고 세련되지 않다고 보지만, 문화적·지정학적 규범이 시대에 뒤처졌다는 사실을 인식했다는 점에서는 강점을 가진다고 생각합니다. 만약 다른 대통령이 지금 집권했더라도, 아마 같은 방향의 정책을 좀 더 정중하게 펼쳤을 것입니다.

---

재설계(리엔지니어링)에 대한 비유와 고려사항

비유:
트럼프의 정책을 ‘강을 건너기 위한 다리를 짓는 과정’에 비유할 수 있습니다. 그러나 그 설계도는 확정적이지 않고, 혼란을 야기하며 미국과의 합의에 대한 신뢰를 떨어뜨리고 있습니다.

답변:
지정학에서 청사진(blueprint)은 쉽게 수정되거나 폐기됩니다. 현실에 부딪히면서 계속 바뀌는 게 설계의 본질입니다. 트럼프는 먼저 기존 구조를 허물고, 남은 것들을 기반으로 새로운 구조를 만들려는 듯합니다. 그것이 효과를 낼지는 아직 모릅니다.

또한 고려할 요소는 다음과 같습니다:

• 유럽은 러시아가 약해졌음에도 여전히 러시아 위협을 두려워함
• 미국의 경제적 패권은 값싼 수입재와 저임금 노동자에 의해 유지되고 있음

---

유럽은 왜 변하지 않았는가?

답변:
2차 대전 이후 80년이 지났지만 유럽은 여전히 단일 국가가 아닌 개별 국가들의 모임입니다. EU와 NATO가 존재하지만, 이는 연방국가가 아닌 느슨한 연합체에 불과합니다. 유럽은 막대한 경제력을 지녔지만, 그 힘을 단일한 정치·군사력으로 전환하지 못했습니다.

오늘날 유럽은 러시아의 위협이 크지 않음에도 방어를 위한 자체적인 구조를 만들지 않고 있습니다. 그 결과 미국이 계속 유럽을 방어해왔고, 이는 미국에게 큰 부담이 되었습니다. 나는 유럽에서 자란 배경도 있고, 미군으로 유럽에 주둔한 경험도 있지만, 유럽이 안보를 스스로 책임지려 하지 않는다는 사실에 실망감을 느낍니다.

---

마무리 인사

나는 여전히 독자 여러분의 모든 이메일을 읽고 있으며, 이런 방식으로 의견에 답변할 수 있어 기쁩니다. 여러분에게도 이 방식이 도움이 되길 바랍니다. 다음 주에 뵙겠습니다.

 

 

Criticism: George’s views on Trump are naïve, biased and give Trump too much credit

Response: As I have long said, Presidents and even tyrants arise because they grasp the reality of the moment, and the manner in which the people experience them. They craft their personalities to fit the moment but they are the products of the moment and the democratic process. Trump was elected by the American people, along with its Congress because they saw something in him that they liked.  Thinking of Trump as incompetent or deranged may be true, but it is also an attack on democracy.  There was no doubt as to who he was before he was elected, and he was democratically elected. While it is also democratic for a powerful segment of the population to despise him, it is essential to also see what his opponents see in him is not what his proponents see.  So in that sense he is our leader because we chose him as a nation.

Franklin D. Roosevelt also governed in his first hundred days issuing 99 Executive orders not validated by Congress, and opposed by the courts which he ignored, and tried to add two members to the court to outvote his opponents there. History now admires Roosevelt’s domestic and foreign policy, but at the time he was seen as a monster by a powerful minority.

I might add that in my book “The Storm Before the Calm” I predicted that we will elect a President who will end the prior cycle (which began 50 years earlier) and would create a storm that would preface the new one.  Roosevelt, facing a similar moment, crafted himself for the moment. A vastly wealth man, who knew nothing of the poor, he nevertheless crafted himself as the friend of the poor, and was treated as a traitor to  his class.  Among his 99 Executive orders were some that wrecked the banking system in the face of Supreme  Court rulings against him.  He was at the time worshiped by his supporters and loathed by his opponents.  He  was widely regarded as a dilettante and self-aggrandizing who was violating all of the norms of American life. 

Like Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and the others who faced dramatic shifts in the reality of America Roosevelt was regarded as a loathsome creature ruining the country. John Adams said at the time that one-third of the country was for the revolution, one third were loyalists and one third didn’t care.  He summed up the reality of cyclical change. Those who demand the norm of an obsolete past hated Washington and the rest with a passion and contempt that is hard for us to imagine. And so too with Trump. My book argued that the fundamental institutions and social and economic conditions were obsolete and would be reengineered. And I predicted a storm. By being not very bright, I could see the obvious, the obsolescence of the federal system Roosevelt had to construct during his presidency to end the depression, the vast cultural division that divided the country and so on.  At cyclical historical points the kind of presidents we elect appear to many as reckless and witless, while those who elect him sigh in relief.  This is America reinventing itself. With this model I can understand and respect those who loathe him, and also those who adore him. I cannot predict how history will regard him, but the historical presidents who were loathed by those who opposed him, emerged as great men. It is hard to imagine Trump as a great man, but then Lincoln, in his day, was called an illiterate monkey.

So Trump in violating the norm is obnoxious to many, but he is in fact the norm that arrives every fifty years as the republic reinvents itself. 

Question: Why/how does the system of free trade harm the USA or cause costs?


Response: Free trade emerged as a principle after World War II.  It emerged as a tool for containing the Soviets.  Free trade allowed Europe to economically revive, because while there was no internal demand for goods, with Europe was shattered, the ability of the US to absorb European exports, with low cost European products, revived the European economy and fit the American geopolitical interests.  The free trade principle was based on the need to revive Europe, at some cost to the United States economically, but of great value geopolitically.  The principle of free trade, coupled with foreign aid, continued as Europe’s empires collapsed and they were renamed the third world. The US and Russia fought proxy wars throughout the cold war, with the US gaining massive advantage by allowing free trade to flourish, and providing foreign aid, both of which helped block Soviet power, since it did not have economic power to match the US.  But this was the norm only in the last 80 years of the Cold War. And it has allowed imbalances that the US no longer needs to bear geopolitically as the Russians weaken. 

Free trade can also be dangerous.  Having relatively free trade with China, allowed low cost Chinese labor to export critical elements needed by the industrial base for low costs.  But it created a grave danger. If you recall in the 1970s, there was an Arab Oil Embargo which for a time shattered the American economy.  With free trade decreasing cost of goods in America, if the goods we need to run our industries are embargoed, or there is unrest in a country we depend on, the US is vulnerable to disaster.  So free trade existed while the geopolitical interest of the US required it. But it also created great risks. Today, the relatively free trade system has created a dependency on foreign nations that can collapse if China would choose to embargo shipments for geopolitical reasons, or unrest in China would make production there decline—or there may be an earthquake in Shanghai.  Free trade gives economic benefits as well as geopolitical ones, but as times change they can be traps. Obviously the shift away from free trade, to the norm prior to the last 80 years, is financially painful in the extreme, and Trump’s engineering is maximizing the pain, but I think his intention is to impose short term chaos for a long term increase in national security and wealth.  So the value of free trade depends on the circumstances. I am not sure of the wisdom of his method, but the dangers of free trade are as clear as their benefits, but it depends on the risk.  Tariffs in the long run mitigate the risks balancing them against the advantage.

Comments on Trump:

• Trump doesn’t understand geopolitics, nor does he have strategy.
• Trump is always transactional, opportunistic, uses poor economic foundations and holds no value/use for allies.
• Trump’s actions will destroy US Dollar dominance and result in US exclusion from new trade alliances

Response: All diplomacy is transactional. The diplomatic process is a process of finding a balance between nations. So I don’t see how the charge of transactional views is a valid criticism. It depends on the transaction.  I do think that any President at this point would be viewing that the geopolitical system we have had is now obsolete.  If Russia could not conquer Ukraine in 3 years, it certainly can’t invade Europe. Therefore the purpose of NATO is obsolete both in terms of Europe’s vast economic recovery, and Russia’s military decline. The logic of the Cold war no longer holds.  But since the Europeans liked the prior American solicitude, with good reason, they see the US shift as reckless. But 80 years for a geopolitical system to remain unchanged is extraordinary.  Sophisticated people have trouble, having adapted to a norm, understanding the norm’s obsolescence. It takes a lack of sophistication to see the obvious. God knows that Trump appears unsophisticated, but there is power in recognizing obsolescence of cultural and geopolitical norms. I think any other president at this moment in history would be doing the same thing, albeit more gracefully.  However is breaking the norm possible without bad manners?

Re-engineering comments: (these are very close to the original emails text)

Engineering analogy:  Think of President Donald Trump's recent actions as building a bridge to cross a river.  A blueprint for redefining the system must be designed, though the outcome of Trump's initial actions is uncertain, even if their intent seems clear. Wise Engineering would proceed with a much more deliberate plan with a clear way forward at a measured pace. Trump’s approach results in chaos and distrust of making agreements with the US.

It is difficult to make blue  prints in geopolitics. In engineering the blueprints are frequently revised as they encounter new realities.  Engineering is the craft of designing things that work, and the initial blueprint is frequently revised and sometimes abandoned for a new one.  Blueprints are drawn up when reality requires a new building, but the blueprints are rarely the final word. I think Trump’s blue print is to first tear down the building see what is left, and innovate in rebuilding.  We will see if it works.  However a blueprint is frequently a fantasy that traps engineers in failure.  There is something to be said for engineering an intent into reality without committing to an overall plan. But then I am far from a handyman around the house and my  wife won’t let me hold a hammer.

Additional considerations for re-engineering will have to take into account that:

- Europeans will remain wary of a Russian resurgence, whatever Russia's current weakness
- the US derives significant wealth from its imperium (it's an economic one), and its domestic stability (as well as the wealth of its wealthiest) depends on the availability of cheap products for an underpaid and to some extent government supported workforce. Looks like this is going to be tested soon.
 
The Europeans have a prior problem. In the 80 years since the war the Europeans are still the discrete nations that they were for centuries, centuries in which they waged the bloodiest wars imaginable against each other. The European have not evolved into a single federal nation, but engage in things like the European Union and Nato in lieu of becoming a nation state, with a European government that can wage war. Europe has vast economic resources for defense, but its geopolitical condition remains the same as it was when Europe tore itself to bits.  This was prevented by the American presence, but during that time the Europeans failed to build the kind of institutions that would bind them together against a Russian threat, which is in my mind much diminished, and was never quite as credible as the US thought, but we overreact which is not a bad thing.

However, after 80 years there is no such thing as a European army or a European foreign policy. Each nation is sovereign and few act in concert.  There is now growing tension between France and Germany, nothing dangerous but not something that should be possible now. I served in Europe in the 1970s when European anti-Americanism was at a peak. It was not pleasant and I was born in Europe.  So the problem of Europe is not that it could not easily repel a Russian invasion, it is that Europe is the name of a continent and not a nation, and they have failed to create a European nation. At the moment, there is no real threat from Russia and for the Europeans you don’t fix the roof when it doesn’t rain because there is no leak, and then don’t fix it when it does because it is raining. The United States spent two world wars and eighty years dealing with Europe’s disease. When I was an American in Paris I was not an honored guest but an imperialist occupier. Of course I was hanging around the Sorbonne hoping for a date.  As a European whose parents had been in German concentration camps, and who had to flee the communists in Hungary when I was an infant, then later served there and frequently visit, I find the Europeans to be unwilling, not unable, to defend themselves. I don’t want my grandchildren to compensate for their irresponsibility.  But that is less geopolitical analysis than very satisfying venting.

I hope this mode of answering questions works for you.  And I hope that those of you offended by my answers understand that counter to my staff’s belief, I am human, and in writing to you in this context I am prepared to reveal some personal feelings.

To emphasize, I read every email you send and welcome this way to respond.  I hope it is of value to you as well.  See you next week.