지난주에 미국의 대통령 도널드 트럼프와 한국의 문재인 대통령 간에 오간 말들을 지켜보면서 나는 두 나라에서 ‘정치’가 얼마나 타락했는지를 절감했다.
자신이 소유한 고급 골프코스와 사치스런 요리에 대해 말하는 트럼프의 말에선 한국과 미국의 수백만 저임금 노동자와 실업자들은 존재하지도 않는 듯했다. 그의 말은 단지 ‘미국 퍼스트’를 넘어서 ‘트럼프 퍼스트’를 떠들어대는 것으로 들렸다.
그런 트럼프에 대해 문재인 대통령은 전혀 이의를 달거나 꾸짖지 못했다. 그의 인종주의적인 발언이나 이민자들에 대한 차별적 정책, 북한에 대한 무분별한 위협에 대해 제동을 거는 아무런 말도 하지 못했다. 한국의 언론들은 모든 미국인들, 그리고 대다수의 한국인들이 트럼프의 우스꽝스럽고 위험한 정책을 지지하는 것처럼 보도했다.
나는 트럼프와 문재인 두 사람의 발언들을 보면서 ‘정치’는 정확히 어떤 것인지, 그리고 우리가 ‘정치’를 복원하기 위해선 무엇을 해야 하는지에 대해 되돌아보았다.
Watching the speeches of President Donald Trump and President Moon Jae-in in Seoul over the last few days gave me a sense of just how rotten the politics of both countries has grown. Trump spoke about his lavish golf course and the fine foods he had enjoyed, dwelling on the sensual indulgence and pretending that the millions of underpaid and unemployed people in Korea and the United States did not exist. He spoke boastfully of the over-priced military equipment that South Korea had been compelled to purchase and indulged in praise for the Korean War so distant from the challenges faced by ordinary people. His talk was not even “America First.” It was unremitting “Trump first.”
And Moon did not challenge him or even chide him on a single point. No mention was made of Trump’s rabid racist language and its impact on Asians, or his discriminatory immigration policies. Nor was anything said about Trump’s rabid warmongering and his reckless threats of war against North Korea, and even veiled threats against Japan in his recent speech in Tokyo. No, the working assumption behind the meetings was that the summit was to be a mechanical and trite grand guignol for the masses, combined with behind-the-scenes big business deals for the super-rich.
The Korean media made it seem like all Americans, and most Koreans, supported the ridiculous and dangerous policies of Donald Trump, and legitimized his reactionary policies with abandon. One came away with the impression that it was perfectly fine for an American president to threaten preemptive nuclear war for North Korea’s testing of missiles (an action which is not in violation of international law) and nuclear weapons (which India did with American encouragement).
I made a short speech to offer another vision for what the United States role in East Asia could be. I did so because I worried that many Koreans would come away from the Trump with the impression that all Americans were just as militant and brazenly profit-motivated.
Although Trump may be beating war drums to scare Japan and Korea into forking over billions of dollars for weapons they do not need or want, he and his regime are clearly playing an extremely dangerous game. There are forces deep in the military who are perfectly willing to launch a catastrophic war if it increases their power, and who think that only such a crisis can distract the people from the criminal actions of the United States government, and draw attention from the looming catastrophe of climate change.
Emanuel Pastreich
“An Alternative role for the United States in East Asia”
Video Text:
Emanuel Pastreich (Director The Asia Institute)
November 8, 2017
“An Alternative role for the United States in East Asia”
Speech in response to Donald Trump’s speech at the National Assembly of Korea
I am an American who has worked for over twenty years with the Korean government, research institutes, universities, private industry and with ordinary citizens.
We have just heard the speech of Donald Trump the president of the United States, to the Korean National Assembly. President Trump laid out a dangerous and unsustainable vision for the United States, and for Korea and Japan, a path that runs towards war and towards massive social and economic conflict, both domestically and internationally. The vision he offers is a frightening combination of isolation and militarism, and it will encourage in other nations ruthless power politics without any concern for future generations.
Before the US-Korea Security Treaty, there was the United Nations Charter, signed by the United States, Russia and China. The United Nations charter defined the role of the United States, China, Russia and other nations as the prevention of war, and an active effort to address the terrible economic inequity that leads to wars. Security must start there, with that vision for peace and for cooperation. We need today the idealism of United Nations Charter, that vision for global peace after the horrors of the Second World War.
Donald Trump does not represent the United States, but rather a tiny group of the superrich and members of the far right. But those elements have increased their control of my country’s government to a dangerous level, in part because of the passivity of so many citizens.
But I believe that we, the people, can take back control of the dialog on security, on economics and on society. If we have creativity, and bravery, we can put forth a different vision for an inspiring future is possible.
Let us start with the issue of security. Koreans have been bombarded with reports about a nuclear attack from North Korea. This threat has been a justification for THAAD, for nuclear-powered submarines and any number of other expensive weapons systems that generate wealth for a small number of people. But do these weapons bring security? Security comes from vision, for cooperation, and from courageous action. Security cannot be purchased. No weapons system will guarantee security.
Sadly, the United States has refused to engage North Korea diplomatically for years and American passivity and arrogance has led us to this dangerous situation. The situation is even worse now because the Trump administration no longer practices diplomacy. The State Department has been stripped of all authority and most nations do not know where to turn if they want to engage the United States. The building of walls, seen and unseen, between the United States and the world is our greatest worry.
God did not give the United States a mandate to remain in Asia forever. It is not only possible, but desirable, for the United States to cut down its military presence in the region and to reduce its nuclear weapons, and conventional forces, as a first step towards creating a positive cycle that will improve relations with North Korea, China and Russia.
North Korea’s testing of missiles is not a violation of international law. Rather, the United Nations Security Council has been manipulated by powerful forces in the United States to support positions regarding North Korea that make no sense at all.
The first step towards peace starts with the United States. The United States, my country, must follow its obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty, and begin again to destroy its nuclear weapons and to set a date in the near future for the total destruction of all remaining nuclear arms. The dangers of nuclear war, and of our secretive weapons programs, have been kept from Americans. If informed of the truth I am certain that Americans will overwhelmingly support the signing of the UN treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
There has been much careless talk about Korea and Japan developing nuclear weapons. Although such actions might provide a short-term thrill for some, they will not bring any form of security. China has kept its nuclear weapons under 300 and would be willing to reduce them further if the United States is committed to disarmament. But China can easily increase the number of nuclear weapons to 10,000 if threatened by Japan, or by South Korea. Advocacy for disarmament is the only action that can increase Korea’s security.
China must be an equal partner in any security framework for East Asia. If China, quickly emerging as the dominant global power, is left out of a security framework, that framework is guaranteed to be irrelevant. Moreover, Japan also must be included in any security framework. We must bring out the best of Japan’s culture, its expertise on climate change and its tradition of peace activism through such collaboration. The banner of collective security must not be used as a rallying call for ultranationalists dreaming of a “warrior Japan” but rather as a means of bringing out Japan’s best, its “better angels.” We cannot leave Japan to itself.
Korean newspapers were filled with reports of the unprecedented drought that did such damage to local agriculture over the last month leaving reservoirs bone dry. The Korea Meteorological Administration noted in May that total precipitation was just 161.1mm, the second-lowest since statistics started being kept in 1973.
But the Korean media has hardly a word to say about the relationship of this drought to climate change, nor the ties between what is happening here and the spreading deserts in Northeast Asia. The region faces desertification, and the prospects for the future are not good.
China and Korea have seen a tremendous flowering of economic, cultural and educational exchange and cooperation since the normalization of relations on August 24, 1992. My students today include a new generation of young people from China and Korea who sincerely want the countries to work together closely and many of them have a command of Chinese language, or of Korean language, that goes beyond anything that could be found in the previous generation.
Also, my Korean and Chinese students have a global vision for what is possible in the region that is inspiring and suggests that they offer us tremendous potential. I am constantly impressed by their efforts and I hope that they can create a more secure, and a brighter, future for all of us.
임마누엘 페스트라이쉬 경희대 후마니타스 칼리지 교수는 한국인보다 한국에 더 자부심을 느끼는 외국인이다. 여러 저작을 통해 한국 문화의 가치와 잠재력을 역설한 그가 이번에는 한국인 이름 ‘이만열’로 한국 사회를 통찰하는 책을 썼다. 『한국인만 몰랐던 더 큰 대한민국』이라는 제목에서 3년 전에 펴낸 『한국인만 모르는 다른 대한민국』의 연장선이자 확장판이라는 책의 의의가 가늠된다.
책에서 놀랐던 대목은 이 교수와 한국 사회의 거리다. 이 교수는 외국인의 시선이라고는 믿기지 않을 만큼 우리 사회 깊숙이에 들어와 우리의 내밀한 곳을 후벼 판다. 이를테면 ‘박근혜-최순실 게이트에서 이들이 부당하게 갈취한 금액은 이명박 정부가 4대강 사업에 쏟아부은 22조 원이나 자원 외교에 낭비한 수십조 원에 비하면 적은 편이다(23쪽)’와 같은 진단은, 숨기고 싶은 상처를 들키고 만 것처럼 창피하고 아프다.
이 교수의 남다른 시선은 예리하고 깊이 있는 분석이 아니라 이 교수의 자리에서 비롯되는 것으로 보인다. 이 교수는 기꺼이 관찰자의 자리를 이탈해 내부자의 자리로 들어온다. ‘우리는 한국이라는 나라의 구성원으로서… 정보에 기반한 현명한 결정을 내려야 한다(63쪽)’며 한국적 저널리즘의 수립을 주장할 때 임마누엘 페스트라이쉬는 한국에 정착한 지 10년째인 외국인이 아니라 한국 여성과 가정을 꾸린 이만열이라는 한국 사회의 내부자다.
그렇다고 이 교수가 한국을 위하기만 하는 것은 아니다. 가방에 텀블러를 넣고 다니는 이 교수에게 일회용품 낭비를 부추기는 한국의 카페 문화는 끔찍하다. 성형수술을 한국의 주요 관광상품으로 육성하자는 움직임은 심오한 정신세계를 구축한 한국 문화의 뿌리를 흔드는 일이라고 꾸짖기도 한다. 읽고 보니 싫은 소리투성이다. 그래도 기분 나쁘지는 않다.
중국 정부가 베이징에서 화석연료 택시 사용을 단계적으로 중단하고 전기차를 대대적으로 도입한다는 정책 발표를 했다. 그러나 이 뉴스는 북한 핵무기와 한·미 자유무역협정(FTA) 재협상에 묻히고 말았다.
한국과학기술원(KAIST) 행정동 앞에 수년간 쓸쓸하게 서 있던 전기차 1대가 생각난다. 한국은 아직도 전기차 전면 도입을 위한 조치를 취하지 않았다. 한국인들은 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령과 문재인 대통령의 관계를 걱정하는 동안, 중국은 2020년까지 재생가능 에너지 3600억달러 투자를 공표하고, 태양에너지·풍력 발전 및 개발산업에서 주도권을 잡기 위해 달려가는 중이다.
한국에서는 스마트폰 생산과 자동차 수출만 늘리면 경제가 다시 일어설 수 있다고 믿는 듯하다. 그러나 지금 경제·기술 분야에서 일어나는 변화는 그야말로 기념비적이다. 한국이 이를 제대로 알아보지 못하는 게 아닐까 걱정된다. 안이한 해결책을 제시하는 미디어 또한 솔직하지 못하며 무책임하기까지 하다.
일단 역사적 시각에서 지금의 경제 전환을 살펴보자. 역사적으로, 대영제국에 무역대국의 자리를 물려주기 전만 해도 경제 규모나 수준에서 가장 앞섰던 국가는 중국이었다. 중국의 번영에는 여러 이유가 있지만, 가장 주효했던 요소는 대규모 식량의 효율적 생산이었다. 1830년대 이전만 해도 각국이 활용 가능했던 에너지는 사람과 동물의 육체노동뿐이었다. 다시 말해, 광합성으로 전환된 태양에너지는 식량의 농업적 생산을 통해서만 얻어낼 수 있었다.
중국은 장기적 농업정책에서도 크게 앞서 있었다. 전국적 수리(水理) 관개(灌漑) 제도 확충과 노련한 운용 정책은 그중에서도 최고였다. 그러나 19세기 영국(을 선두로 프랑스와 독일 등)에서 석탄을 기반으로 한 새로운 경제가 시작됐다. 석탄은 목재나 육체노동보다 훨씬 많은 에너지를 제공했고, 대량생산이 가능한 공장을 가동시켰다. 중국의 에너지 시스템은 경쟁 상대가 되지 않았다. 석탄으로 얻은 화력이 군수산업에 도입되면서 중국(을 비롯한 아시아 전역)은 아편전쟁에서 능욕을 당하는 처지가 됐다.
그러나 대영제국의 석탄경제 또한 영원할 수는 없었다. 20세기 초반 석탄보다 훨씬 효율적인 또 다른 화석연료, 석유가 전면에 등장한 것이다.
The news in Seoul has been taken over by reports that North Korea has launched another missile into the ocean. Images of the missile launch were repeated over and over again followed by speculation that North Korea would use the missile to attack the East Coast of the United States. The reporting was pure hype without a single rational voice offering an opinion about the significance of one missile launch or the difficulties of assessing the possible payload for such a missile.
The timing of this news coverage with South Korea’s deployment of the THAAD missile defense system was too perfect. Missing from the discussion has been the real threats that South Korea faces and whether missile defense is effective. These two obvious questions were swept under the rug.
North Korea’s missile launches in fact were a response to a series of live ammunition drills off its coast by the United States, South Korea, and Japan that have been going on, more or less continuously for a year. To North Korea, these drills seems like a preparation for an invasion. Not only is it natural that North Korea would make some response, granted the United States penchant for illegal regime change, it is entirely legal to do so according to international law. The United Nations Security Council has condemned North Korea for missile launches and called for sanctions, but China’s suggestion that both sides freeze their military actions is far more rational and Pyongyang has indicated that it is open to such negotiations.