Globalization is thought to be a contemporary phenomenon, believing that our scientific and technological advances in recent decades ushered in this new world. That under the umbrella of capitalism and trade our world has become this vast interconnected web. A web so massive in scale it is completely ingrained in our everyday lives, but that is not the case. Politicians for almost a century have stressed the importance of prosperous trade relations leading to nations’ political unity, lessening the chances of war between countries. This mentality is no more prevalent than during the post-Cold War period marked by the need for a new world. The Clinton Doctrine outlines enlargement as a strategic policy, ushering in a new focus of liberalized American trade policy and an emphasis on Geo-economics in a post-Cold War period. The purpose of this policy was to create a unified world by equating political stability with economic prosperity.
As discussed, politicians and individuals have understood the importance of this policy. Illustrated by Secretary of State Cordell Hull in his 1938 speech on "Trade, Prosperity and Peace."
Recommend listening from beginning (8:41) to 9:08 [1]
“A peaceful world is possible only when they exist, a solid economic foundation an indispensable part of which is active and mutually beneficial trade among the nations.” [1] Hull at the time was advocating to the nation the importance of maintaining the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 that secured these partnerships. Noting that the only way for the world to come out of World War II would be through economic integration. Which at the time was attempted by several of the world’s leaders.
Having learned of the disastrous effects that the Treaty of Versailles had on the German population, these individuals did not want to see it repeated. This was the underlying context for the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944. Creating leading international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), their goal was to create a body that could become a global bank in which nations could go to and ask for money to protect their currencies. The purpose of this was to avoid these struggling nations from raising their national interest rates or even adding higher tariffs. [2] The purpose of having these systems originally was to help struggling European nations like Germany who had been devastated from the war. But eventually it also provided a platform to lend funds to emerging economies to better improve their own infrastructure.
The effects that this system has had have been mixed. On one side there is the argument that, "I think the institutions are still, especially the IMF, very functional, very relevant, particularly as a risk-reducing mechanism on a scale that's global. There's no other institution (which) can do that.” [3] Whereas the counter argument to this is that emerging and smaller economies do not have as much of a stake in this system. “…because they feel they don’t have enough say in the governance of the international system.” [4] This argument follows the narrative that these institutions were created by rich countries to promote only Western hegemonic culture and ideals.
Although this system did not do much to truly promote free trade amongst nations or really give better tools for underdeveloped economies to rise. It was one of the first instances where we see the United States agreeing to participate in an international institution, ceding some of its own sovereign power and control. Its predecessor being the United States’ membership in the United Nations. Unfortunately, the Bretton Woods system inevitably collapsed in the 1970’s after President Nixon decided to devalue the dollar in a failed attempt to bolster the US economy. Another factor that stunted the growth that these individuals had for the world was the ushering of the Cold War.
Recommend from beginning (:06) to :21 [5]
The Cold War brought a new level of paranoia with it. Dividing the world between two ideological sides, either red or blue. The United States’ foreign policy was that of containment. Focusing solely on how to prevent the fall of newly minted democratic nations to that of the communist system. The inevitable end of the Cold War did bring about a new rebirth of these old trade ideals. Under President Bill Clinton, a new age of multilateralism and global integration was ushered in.
The Clinton Doctrine was focused on a simple word, “enlargement.” It was best said by Anthony Lake, Clinton's National Security Advisor, “Throughout the Cold War, we contained a global threat to market democracies; now we should seek to enlarge their reach, particularly in places of special significance to us.” [6] Their goals were focused on creating these communities of market democracies and instead of providing aid the United States would effectively work on allowing for market economies to take shape in these nations. What essentially happened is that this doctrine would look at foreign policy like a business finding ways to maximize profits and lower costs. As noted by Richard N. Haas' analysis of Clinton's foreign policy, “…opening trade – nothing would do more to promote prosperity within countries or peace among them.” [7] And it seemed like this was occurring at the time.
Clinton built on the legacy of Bush by solidifying and signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and then participating in the Uruguay Round which created the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and eventually securing a space for the United States in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Creating a space for the birth of trade liberalization and globalization. “The GATT alone lowered tariffs worldwide by $744 billion over a ten-year period – the largest international reduction in history.” [8] Or even how, “from 1993 to 1996, more than 200 new market opening agreements helped to create 1.6 million American job.” [8] Clinton’s focus on trade was benefiting Americans on all sides. And it seemed to bring about this new sense of economic prosperity around the world.
The Clinton Doctrine though fell short in many aspects that were criticized by individuals on both sides of the political spectrum. What needs to be understood is that the context for this period was a very difficult landscape. The Cold War had created a consensus in the population of one sole and common enemy, the Soviet Union. But with the collapse there was much ambiguity and a lack of direction in policy when it came to figuring out what would happen next.
A popular critique was that Clinton did not even have a foreign policy. Robert Manning and Patrick Clawson describe it as, “…Mr. Clinton’s foreign policy seems to operate in a sunnier world, where every disagreement can be ended with a deal.” [9] Many did think that Clinton did not have the proper experience nor the political prowess to be considered the Commander in Chief. Arguing that his strategy was too vague and open ended, preferring to remain elastic and not really contain himself to one direction. In a world looking to the United States for a clear direction to take to the future it proved to be at times a costly one. Especially in the face of humanitarian crises. With blunders in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia trade liberalization as a means of ushering in peace to the rest of the world proved difficult. “…there is a cost to building a foreign policy on hopes of a beneficence rather than on rock-solid shared interests.” [9]
Whereas the other side of the political spectrum asserted that Clinton had given up too much American freedom. Deciding that these international institutions were receiving the better end of the bargain in comparison to the United States. Steel workers in rural United States and others in the Rust Belt worried for the loss of jobs due to cheaper workers abroad and cheaper foreign products. This protectionist policy leaning to the belief, “…that the solution to the world’s ills, is American hegemony.” [10] With growing inequality at home, these individuals were right to worry what this new policy would bring to the table. The issue with this though is that even before the official signing of trade agreements, economic interdependence was growing at a rapid pace. The scientific and technological revolution facilitating this more interconnected and unified ecosystem. The only way the United States could benefit from this was to pioneer and write the rules themselves.
Although it was difficult at times the doctrine of enlargement was creating profound effects in the global ecosystem of the 90’s. Allowing for the birth of the information age, globalization had finally taken ahold of the world stage. Enlargement and free trade were uniquely linked. Martin Walker arguing that Clinton, as the free trade world leader had “abandoned militarized slogans of the past to the commercial realities of the future.” [11] We can see that these strategies were bringing real results on a global stage. The United States was sailing on the boat of trade liberalization with Clinton at the helm steering the nation to a bright new tomorrow.
We can still see the aftereffects of Geo-economics in nations today. Clinton brought together a globalized world and a new era of interconnectedness. The repercussions whether they are good, allowing for the shipment of much needed masks from China to the United States in a matter of days, or bad, the proliferation of Western culture across the globe and a new wave of cultural imperialism. In recent years we have seen the rise of populism across the world from nations such as the United States, Brazil, Philippines, England, and France veering towards protectionist policies and measures. One of the most striking and shocking repercussions of these movements was Brexit. No one expected the United Kingdom to leave the comfort of the no trade barriers in the European Union. This growing minority in nations discontent with globalization and pushing to enact unilateral decisions and trade sanctions instead of working together to ensure peace and de-escalation of conflict.
Michael Cox eloquently describes the phenomenon, “Populism reflects a deep suspicion of the prevailing establishment; that this establishment in the view of most populists does not rule in the common good but conspires against the people; and that the people, however defined, are the true repositories of the soul of the nation.” [12] This could not be more true than the rhetoric that President Trump had used during his 2016 presidential campaign. Globalization was causing the detriment of American society and causing greater income inequality.
Recommended from beginning (1:06) to 1:38 [13]
In that respect critics are not far off base. Trade liberalization, just as capitalism, is not a perfect system and will often have negative byproducts. Wealthy nations remain wealthy while poor nations stay poor. There seems to be few and very slow economic mobilization amongst the developing world. It is difficult to expect a nation such as the Democratic Republic of Congo to be able to reap the riches of free trade when their democratic system has been in shambles for years. When conflict and war have torn the region and exploitation of their mines for products such as gold, copper, or cobalt are used as key ingredients in finished products across the world. These cases of large corporations profiting off the natural resources of developing nations who see little of the profit from these exploits is difficult to say the least. It should be said that corrupt politicians in these nations and war lords do profit from this work, exacerbating this issue. It is hard to argue for the legacy of the Clinton Doctrine in these cases of vast economic inequality between nations. The reason for this being that the Doctrine and even Clinton himself would speak that the United States would help bolster emerging economies that benefitted them strategically. Such as ones in Asia like China and Singapore. Which in turn does create these economic and social inequalities that a business-like approach focusing on the bottom line do not have answers to.
Populism though does not seem to focus on attempting to solve or mitigate the byproducts of trade liberalization. Instead it is a reactionary measure to the concentration of wealth that has occurred in these developed and emerging economies. The working class has lost many of their jobs. American factories having preferred to go overseas. Marked by, “the abandonment of full employment as a desirable policy goal and its replacement with inflation targeting…; a focus at the firm level on shareholder value maximization rather than reinvestment and growth…; and the pursuit of flexible labor markets and the disruption of trade unions and workers’ organizations.” [12]
The growing trend towards populism in the United States can be attributed to the fact that this nation was sold the idea that free trade would bring economic prosperity, not just abroad, but at home as well.
Recommended from beginning (15:13) to 15:36 [14]
Instead people who vote towards this, “were people who expressed high degrees of dissatisfaction with the way their political institutions were working. They don’t trust the government. They don’t trust parliament or Congress.” [14] An interesting phenomenon that cannot be attributed to free trade and globalization alone. American distrust in politicians and the establishment could be linked to the Vietnam War and the ensuing scandals that rocked the nation afterward.
Fraser Cameron eloquently describes the narrative that, “Since the Second World War, the US has increasingly come to see free trade as a means not only of advancing its own economic interests but also as a key to building peace in the world.” [10] It is important to note the shift in American foreign policy due to the ever increasing economic interdependence that is not a contemporary phenomenon. Although in recent years there has been a populist movement against globalization and even the everyday critiques outlining nation inequality. It can be said that the Clinton Doctrine, having followed this notion that trade liberalization and economic prosperity would lead to a unified and stable world has been successful. The post-Cold War period was an ambiguous one that looked towards the United States for answers moving forward. The United States and Clinton delivered that promise with their strategy of enlargement.
Free trade facilitated the opening of new markets, scientific and technological innovation and a vast global interconnectedness never before seen. It can be confidently said that since then there have been no global world wars, small and inevitable regional conflicts yes. But the world feels more secure under the umbrella of trade liberalization. Globalization is so wholeheartedly ingrained in our lives we cannot imagine a world in which we do not have access to our smartphones or computers that are made from materials from all around the world. It is in our culture as we watch the same TV shows and movies, people’s love for the mad scientist in Rick and Morty or their obsession with the Kardashian family. Trade liberalization has created many new and amazing opportunities for individuals and nations, one that if we ever regress on will have devastating effects on the world stage.
Works Cited
[1] Secretary of State Cordell Hull's "Trade, Prosperity and Peace" Address; 2/6/1938; Audio Recordings, 1950 - 1952; General Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD. [Online Version, https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/cordell-hull-address, August 13, 2020]
[2] Amadeo, Kimberly. How a 1944 Agreement Created a New World Order. 24 July 2020, www.thebalance.com/bretton-woods-system-and-1944-agreement-3306133 [3] Root, Hilton. Interview by Tian Wei. Worldinsight, 17, Jul. 2019, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-17/Is-Bretton-Woods-still-relevant-today--IpmNkp9uEg/index.html
[4] Begg, Iain. Interview by Tian Wei. Worldinsight, 17, Jul. 2019, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-17/Is-Bretton-Woods-still-relevant-today--IpmNkp9uEg/index.html
[5] Nixon, Richard. "The Challenge of Peace" Address; 15 Aug. 1971. [Online Version, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnhF09QN78&feature=emb_title]
[6] Lake, Anthony. “From Containment to Enlargement.” School of Advanced International Studies, 21 September 1993, John Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. [7] Haass, Richard N. “Fatal Distraction: Bill Clinton's Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy, no. 108, 1997, pp. 112–123. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1149093. Accessed 13 Aug. 2020.
[8] Ambrose, Stephen E, and Douglas G. Brinkley. Rise to Globalism. Penguin Books, 2011 [9] Ambrose, Stephen E, and Douglas G. Brinkley. Rise to Globalism. Penguin Books, 201 Manning, Robert, and Patrick Clawson. “The Clinton Doctrine.” The Clinton Doctrine – The Washington Insititue for Near East Policy, 29 Dec. 1997, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-clinton-doctrine
[10] Cameron, Fraser. US Foreign Policy After the Cold War : Global Hegemon or Reluctant Sheriff? Taylor & Francis [CAM], 2003. [11] Ambrose, Stephen E, and Douglas G. Brinkley. Rise to Globalism. Penguin Books, 2011
[12] Cox, Michael. “Understanding the Global Rise of Populism.” LSE Ideas, London School of Economics, https://medium.com/@lseideas/understanding-the-global-rise-of-populism-27305a1c5355
[13] Trump, Donald. Town hall meeting. 2016 Presidential Campaign Trail, 16 Oct. 2016, Sandown, NH. [Online Version, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcXjbWgBK8]
[14] Berman, Sheri E., and Gest, Justin and Luce, Edward, panelists. The Rise of Global Populism. Council on Foreign Relations, 30 October, 2018. https://www.cfr.org/event/rise-global-populism
Comments