[Reporter’s Notebook] The Price of the 'Good Nation Complex'

The European Union (EU) has announced plans to introduce a new tariff rate quota (TRQ) system to replace its existing steel safeguard measures. Imports exceeding the quota will be subject to a 50% tariff, double the previous rate. Following the United States' imposition of high tariffs, the barriers to entry in the European steel market have also risen. As a result, damage to Korean steel exports is now inevitable.

The Korean government has consistently prioritized 'principles.' It has maintained a stance of respecting World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and resolving issues through negotiation rather than retaliation. This approach remained unchanged when the United States raised tariffs, when Japan imposed export restrictions, and when Europe introduced the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. There has been a sense of moral pride in 'acting correctly according to principles.'

The reality, however, is harsh. The United States, which Korea has regarded as a close ally, has twisted its partner's arm by imposing high tariffs on Korean steel and automobiles under the pretext of protecting its own industries. While Korea has repeatedly called for 'cooperation,' the negotiation table has always been set by the United States, leaving Korea to negotiate the terms within those parameters.

With the EU's latest measures, Korea is once again being dragged back to the negotiating table. Negotiations with the United States over tariffs have yet to be concluded. The pattern has been to belatedly calculate the 'extent of the damage,' request 'exceptions,' and seek 'alternative markets.' In an era where the global trade order is being reshaped by the logic of power, one must ask whether Korea remains trapped in the mold of a 'good trading nation.'

It is problematic for a country to appear as one that only has concessions to offer in negotiations. Until now, Korea has used tariffs solely as a defensive tool. However, it is necessary to recognize that global powers wield tariffs as 'negotiation weapons.' Even preemptively adjusting tariffs or signaling strategic tariffs on specific items can shift the dynamics of negotiations.

Of course, indiscriminate retaliation is risky. Given Korea's high dependence on exports, it would be difficult to withstand a 'tariff war.' However, there is a broad gray area between 'all-out confrontation' and 'no response.' For example, Korea could consider reciprocal tariffs on certain items with high import dependence or attach conditional suspensions to tariff reduction negotiations. Such strategic responses are not mere retaliation but a way to restore the language of normal negotiations. As much as the counterpart wields power, Korea must at least be prepared with its own shield and spear.

In today's international trade order, power takes precedence over rules. Simply remaining a 'good country' is not enough to protect national interests. The government must redesign its trade policy. It is time to move beyond passive defense and adopt an assertive negotiation strategy that leverages tariffs, subsidies, investment, and technology. Korea should make it clear that it can reconsider expanding cooperation or market access in other sectors such as defense, automobiles, batteries, and energy. Furthermore, on global issues like carbon reduction and critical mineral supply chains, Korea should signal that it can adjust its level of participation if mutual benefits are not ensured.

The era of trade is not over. Only the era of 'good trade' has ended. Now, Korea must become a country that respects rules but also knows how to calculate and protect its interests. Instead of being dragged along at the negotiating table, it should strive to set the agenda. What is needed now is not moral pride, but strategic cool-headedness.