American Foreign
Economic Policy, Human
Rights Policy, and Public
Policy
Professor
Jaechun Kim
Foreign Economic Policy of the US

During the Cold War era, the US worked very
hard to establish and manage free (liberal)
international economic order based on liberal
economic theories (principles)…

Why? What had been the primary objectives?

Because of commercial interests?

Free international economic order will
promote American "security interests” as
well as “commercial interests” as well as …”

Many Americans perceived “beggar-thyneighbor” or protectionist policies of the
interwar period had contributed to the
outbreak of WWII…

This policy was a part of liberal
internationalism… a part of
Wilsonianism…

Liberal internationalism called for active
participation in the world (based on liberal
premises…)

Commercial Liberalism – “If goods do not
cross the borders, armies will…”
Creation of Free International Trade Regime

In the area of International Trade, the US tried to
establish free international trade regime…

GATT had become the centerpiece of the post
WWII free intl trade regime  GATT intl trade
regime
cf. ITO (International Trade Organization)

GATT regime has transformed into WTO regime
after rounds of multilateral trade negotiations
(Tokyo rounds, Kennedy rounds… Uruguay
rounds… ) cf. DDA

During the 1950s and 1960s the US had the power
to manage the intl trade order…

Therefore the US let Japan and EA NICs free-ride
the system…

During the 1970s and 1980s the US trade policy
became more aggressive…




The US was faced with chronic trade deficit…
It seemed that the US no longer had the power
and willingness to assume the burden of
maintaining free intl trade order…
The US hegemonic power seemed to have been
in decline…
“If you use protectionist policies, we will use
protectionist policies as well…”

Increasing use of AD (Anti-Dumping Duties) and CVD
(Countervailing Duties) to protect the domestic
market in the 80s

Trying to rectify unfair trade practices of trading
partners (using Super 301 clause) … “you will have to
open up your market as well!!”

But did not become fully protectionist… in recent
years, resurgence of emphasis on free trade

Nonetheless, the US trade policy has become
increasingly bilateral in recent years…

Bilateralism vs. Multilateralism: FTA vs. WTO!?

FTA as building block or stumbling block for a more
liberal (free) international trade (economic) order!?

Jagdish Bhagwati – Spaghetti Effect!
Fast Track Authority of the President
in International Trade Negotiations

The Fast track negotiating authority (also called Trade
Promotion Authority, TPA) for trade agreements is the
authority of the President of the United States to negotiate
agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but
cannot amend or filibuster.

Fast-track negotiating authority is granted to the president by
Congress. It was in effect pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974
from 1975 to 1994 and was restored in 2002 by the Trade Act
of 2002. It expired at midnight on July 1, 2007.


In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that renewal of the
authority is a requirement for the conclusion of Trans-Pacific Strategic
Economic Partnership (TPP) negotiations
The law gives the president power to negotiate with foreign
countries… the Congress cannot modify the negotiations…
Int’l Monetary Regime
 Bretton
 Why
Woods System
IMS matters?
 Sound
intl monetary system is a prerequisite
for maintenance of stable world economy.
 It
is prerequisite for the growth of world trade
and foreign investment…

Two goals of the BW

A world in which governemnt would have
considerable leeway to pursue national econ
objectives, yet

the monetary order would be based on fixed XR to
prevent the competitive depreciations…
 Both
autonomy and stability!!

Creation of IMF to supervise BWS…

The compromise of domestic autonomy and intl
monetary stability

Embedded Liberalism

“Unlike the economic nationalism of the thirties, it
would be liberalistic in character; unlike the liberalism
of the gold standard, its liberalism would be
predicated upon domestic interventionism.” John G.
Ruggie

Avoided
(1) subordination of domestic economic activities to
the stability of the IMS (this was the key feature of
Classical Gold Std.) and also
 (2) the sacrifice of IMS to the domestic policy
autonomy (which was the key char of the interwar
period..)


Intended to enable gov to pursue Keynesian
growth policies at home, without sacrificing intl
monetary stability…

It was also intended to achieve stable intl
monetary system, without subordinating
autonomy in domestic econ activities…
 How
the dilemma was solved during the
BWS
 If
a country is suffering temporary BOP
disequilibria, IMF provided medium-term loan
to the country…
 If a country is suffering fundamental BOP
disequilibria, the system permitted a country
to change its XR…

The key to the system?
American economy… dollar…
 Other nations pegged their currencies to the dollar, so
this was the system of fixed XR.
 The US pledged to keep the dollar convertible into
gold at $35 per ounce.
 Dollar was the principal medium of exchange, store of
value, and unit of accounting..

 It
was quite successful !!

Two basic asymmetries  Collapse of BWS
1.
The role of dollar as providing intl liquidity  leads
to American BOP deficit  decreased confidence in
the IMS
2.
US, not able to devalue the dollar to improve its
BOP position

1971, 8. 15. Nixon announced that the US will
suspend the convertibility of the dollar into gold.
Kingston Conference – the
determination of the par value of a
currency is the responsibility of the country
 1976
 (Non)system
of flexible rates
Floating  Loss of intl financial
discipline
 Dirty

Embedded Liberalism…

Prof. Chang, Ha-Joon of Cambridge
University
Kicking away the ladder
 Bad Samaritans

Policy of Humanitarian Intervention and
Human Rights Policy

The fundamental problem of Humanitarian
Intervention in International Relations:

Human Rights   Sovereign Rights

Restrictionists vs. Counter-restrictionists

Pluralist international society theory vs. Solidarist
international society theory

These two different schools present different
solutions to the problem…

Restrictionists (Pluralist international society theory)




intervention violates the cardinal norm of international
relation – principle of sovereignty…
Protecting sovereignty is more important..
invoke Article 2 of UN Charter (principle of nonintervention)
Counter-restrictionists (Solidarist international
society theory)



we should give priority to protection of HR…
there is legal right of unilateral and collective humanitarian
intervention…
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and
many other resolutions…

Major rationales for approving
humanitarian intervention (Case of
solidarist theory of intl society; case of
counter-restrictionists)
Growing consensus on common humanity
 Is this view right, though?


Protection of H R is becoming a major
concern of intl community…unilateralism is
OK when intervening…


In some cases, not intervening is simply morally
wrong…
Rationales for disapproving HI

Primary motive of HI hardly is humanitarian (realist
argument…)


There is good reason to be suspicious about the motives…
States should not risk the lives of their soldiers on
humanitarian grounds… (morality can’t be the
foundation for states’ foreign policy)…







Problem of abuse
Legitimization of HI will lead to the abuse of
intervention… because of the subjective nature of
human rights… HI will be the tools of intervention for
strong countries…
Selectivity in response…
States apply HI selectively…
Northern Iraq (1993), KOSOVO, Somalia (1992),
North Korea; Rwanda, East Timor, Sudan… Myanmar,
maybe Pakistan…
No consensus on what principles should govern a
doctrine of HI..
Rule-consequentialism: intl society will be better off if
we can uphold the principle of sovereignty instead of
allowing HI in the absence of consensus.
General Attitudes of the US to
Human Rights

Influence of American Exceptionalism

The US has tended to emphasize its moral
obligation not to overlook human rights
violation at home and abroad. This has been
reflected in the conduct of US FP…

Self-imposed image of the US that was
founded on principles of Classical
Liberal political thoughts (that
emphasized the importance of
individual freedom, dignity, civil liberty,
etc.) has guided her conduct of
domestic and foreign policies…

The US has adopted (domestic and
international) laws and institutions to
pursue these values… this fact should
not be summarily dismissed…

Consistency of the US Human Rights
policy?

It hasn’t been consistent… intervention in
Kosovo (1999) and Somalia (1993), great
concern for human rights situations in
North Korea… but lack of interest in East
Timor and Rwanda… and also toward
Darfur crisis in Sudan… Saudi Arabia

Then, should the US Human Rights policy be
understood as foreign policy “tools” to
advance national interests of the US? Or
rhetorical window dressing to cover up
imperial policies?
Human Rights Policy during
the Cold War

Human rights was not the highest priority of the
US FP

Human rights was indeed used as rhetoric and
tools…

Raised concerns of the Human rights situations in
USSR and other communist countries, but tolerant
toward human rights situations in other parts of the
world…!

Supporting right-wing dictators…

Exception was Jimmy Carter’s new FP
initiative based on human rights…

Improve human rights, then we will give aids…!

Withdrawal of support for right-wing
dictatorship…

but toward the end of his tenure, he had to give
up Human Rights first foreign policy…
Human Rights Policy after the Cold War

More proactive Human Right policy…
intervention for humanitarian purposes…
for e.g., Clinton’s policies of humanitarian
intervention…

Intervention in Northern Iraq … 1992, the
US, Great Britain, France and Netherlands..

Intervention in Somalia… 1993 dispatching
PKOs (mostly American soldiers)
Intervention in KOSOVO

Serbia’s Milosevic regime has killed Kosovar Albanians

US intervention through NATO… 1999

Why did the US decide to intervene?

Sheer calculation of interests? – strengthening NATO;
containment of Russia; prevention of refugee flows;
maintenance of Dayton Accord

Humanitarian concern?

Little bit of both!!

Criticisms against NATO intervention in
KOSOVO crisis, and rebuttals

UN security council didn’t sanction it –
violation of intl law – Russia and China

 With Russia and China opposing
intervention, multilateral intervention was
impossible…
Intervention of domestic affairs;
encroaching on sovereign rights…
  Do we have to respect sovereign rights
of these killer countries?


Success?

Maybe too little and too late…

Wrong methods…
Public Diplomacy

Definition :
“A multi-faceted effort extending beyond the
government and official channels in a host
country to influence the people’s views about
US policies, culture, society, and values”

Counterpart is not government
officials…rather it is people in general!

Public diplomacy in the Cold War era
Extensive use of Public Diplomacy…
 Basically, propaganda! To manipulate the
perception! To undermine hostile regimes…
 Government to People
 Unidirectional


Waning interest in PD in the post-Cold
War era
Backlash against propaganda operation…
 Elimination of USIA (created in 1953) in 1999


Resurgent Need for New Public Diplomacy

Public role in foreign policy is becoming more important :
more democracies; more information  TGIF!


More assertive public with more information!
Public wants to be a part of foreign policy making! 
No more backroom deal!
Public has tools!

New characteristics

Government/People to People
 Bidirectional
 Talk less, listen more!


Policy of foreign assistance as public diplomacy ;
cultural diplomacy as public diplomacy
 Transformational

Diplomacy
Backdrop : The US War on Terror based on
“hard power” and its backlash…
of C. Rice (2006) : “to work with
our many partners around the world to
build and sustain democratic, wellgoverned states that will respond to the
needs of their people and conduct
themselves responsibly in the
international system.” (2006, testimony
before the Senate Foreign relations
Committee)
 Vision




Regime Change  Regime Transformation
Hard Power  Soft Power?
Public diplomacy is elevated to be an integral
component of Transformational Diplomacy!
Repositioning of US Foreign Service personnel!
Diplomacy in Hilary’s
Sate Dept
 Public

TD : “end tyranny around the world… to
transform regimes” how? “public power and
soft power”
 But
still appear arrogant!
 “Persuade people around the world that
America is a force for good…”
 No particular objectives… no conditions!!
QDDR(Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, 2010), Leading
Through Civilian Power


Smart power!

Multiple diplomatic players!

USAID is cool again!

Integrated to the State Dept

Foreign aid is an important part of
new PD…
Aid w/o imposing conditions…

 What
was the grand strategy of
the Bush administration?

The grand strategic design of the Bush
administration was to sustain and reinforce
the uni-polar international system based on
American hegemony.

Unilateralism and the doctrine of preemption
should be understood as a part of Bush’s Grand
Strategy

A draft Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) on
US grand strategy, which was leaked to the
New York Times in 1992, called for
maintaining US military preeminence by
preventing the rise of any potentially hostile
power and a policy of preemption against
states suspected of developing WMDs. 
influence of Neocons…

The ultimate goal of “neoconservative”
security strategy was Pax Americana.

911 provided the opportunity to pursue this
goal…

This is necessary for the American national
interests and also for the stability of
international relations…

In the end, international security will be
secured when American values and systems
take root in the world…

 Neo-Wilsonian element in Bush’s foreign
policy… ;  American Exceptionalism
(emphasizing the moral obligation of the
US…)

Threats to the US and International
Order

Rogue States and terrorists…WMD


Policy of preemption… ; Military
Transformation and Global Posture Review
Traditional threats such as China and
Russia…

Alliance; MD ; MT and GPR

How to sustain and strengthen the US
hegemony?
Hard Power – cf. Soft Power …
 Military transformation; global posture
review (GPR)…
 Procuring oil reserves…


Debate after the Cold War: In the US
foreign policy making circle, debate
revolved around the desirability of
maintaining American hegemon in the
aftermath of sudden death of the Cold War.

Bush and his inner circle were clearly on
the side of those who argued for the merits
of sustaining American hegemon.
Robert Jervis, Christopher Layne, John
Mearsheimer (?) – no need for American
hegemon
 Huntington – need for American hegemon


Barriers to Bush’ foreign policy initiatives

Domestic constraints


Collapse of 911 consensus
International constraints
Anti-American sentiments
 Legitimacy problem
 Too much reliance on Hard Power


Obama’s foreign policy during the first
term?

Obama’s foreign policy for the second
term?