American Foreign Economic Policy, Human Rights Policy, and Public Policy Professor Jaechun Kim.

American Foreign Economic Policy, Human Rights Pol-

icy, and Public Policy

Professor

Jaechun Kim

During the Cold War era, the US worked very hard to establish and manage free (liberal) in-ternational economic order based on liberal economic theories (principles)…

Why? What had been the primary objectives?

Because of commercial interests?

Free international economic order will pro-mote American "security interests” as well as “commercial interests” as well as …”

Foreign Economic Policy of the US

Many Americans perceived “beggar-thy-neighbor” or protectionist policies of the interwar period had contributed to the outbreak of WWII…

This policy was a part of liberal interna-tionalism… a part of Wilsonianism…

Liberal internationalism called for ac-tive 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 main-taining 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 part-ners (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 increas-ingly 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 coun-tries… the Congress cannot modify the negotiations…

Int’l Monetary Regime

Bretton Woods System

Why 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 consider-

able 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 predi-cated upon domestic interventionism.” John G. Rug-gie

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 auton-omy (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 mone-tary system, without subordinating autonomy in domestic econ activities…

How the dilemma was solved during the BWS

If a country is suffering temporary BOP dise-quilibria, IMF provided medium-term loan to the country…

If a country is suffering fundamental BOP dis-equilibria, 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.

1976 Kingston Conference – the determi-nation of the par value of a currency is the responsibility of the country

(Non)system of flexible rates

Dirty Floating Loss of intl financial dis-cipline

Embedded Liberalism…

Prof. Chang, Ha-Joon of Cambridge Uni-versity Kicking away the ladder Bad Samaritans

Policy of Humanitarian Intervention and Human Rights Policy

The fundamental problem of Humanitarian Interven-tion in International Relations:

Human Rights Sovereign Rights   Restrictionists vs. Counter-restrictionists

Pluralist international society theory vs. Solidarist in-ternational society theory

These two different schools present different solu-tions to the problem…

Restrictionists (Pluralist international society theory)

intervention violates the cardinal norm of international re-lation – principle of sovereignty…

Protecting sovereignty is more important.. invoke Article 2 of UN Charter (principle of non-interven-

tion)

  Counter-restrictionists (Solidarist international soci-

ety theory)

we should give priority to protection of HR… there is legal right of unilateral and collective humanitar-

ian intervention… Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and

many other resolutions…

Major rationales for approving humanitar-ian intervention (Case of solidarist theory of intl society; case of counter-restriction-ists)

Growing consensus on common humanity Is this view right, though?

Protection of H R is becoming a major con-cern 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 foun-dation for states’ foreign policy)…

Problem of abuse Legitimization of HI will lead to the abuse of interven-

tion… 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… Myan-mar, 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 viola-tion at home and abroad. This has been re-flected in the conduct of US FP…

Self-imposed image of the US that was founded on principles of Classical Lib-eral political thoughts (that emphasized the importance of individual freedom, dignity, civil liberty, etc.) has guided her conduct of domestic and foreign poli-cies…

The US has adopted (domestic and in-ternational) 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 Dar-fur crisis in Sudan… Saudi Arabia

Then, should the US Human Rights policy be understood as foreign policy “tools” to ad-vance national interests of the US? Or rhetor-ical 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 initia-

tive based on human rights…

Improve human rights, then we will give aids…!

Withdrawal of support for right-wing dictator-

ship…

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… inter-vention for humanitarian purposes… for e.g., Clinton’s policies of humanitarian in-tervention…

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 – vio-lation of intl law – Russia and China

With Russia and China opposing inter-vention, multilateral intervention was im-possible…

Intervention of domestic affairs; encroach-ing 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 coun-try 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 percep-

tion! 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 ; cul-tural diplomacy as public diplomacy

Transformational Diplomacy

Backdrop : The US War on Terror based on “hard power” and its backlash…

Vision of C. Rice (2006) : “to work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsi-bly in the international system.” (2006, tes-timony before the Senate Foreign relations Committee)

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!

Public Diplomacy in Hilary’s Sate Dept

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 Devel-opment 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 ad-ministration 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 maintain-ing US military preeminence by preventing the rise of any potentially hostile power and a pol-icy of preemption against states suspected of developing WMDs. influence of Neocons…

The ultimate goal of “neoconservative” secu-rity 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 interna-tional relations…

In the end, international security will be se-cured when American values and systems take root in the world…

Neo-Wilsonian element in Bush’s foreign policy… ; American Exceptionalism (em-phasizing the moral obligation of the US…)

Threats to the US and International Or-der

Rogue States and terrorists…WMD Policy of preemption… ; Military Transforma-

tion and Global Posture Review Traditional threats such as China and Rus-

sia… Alliance; MD ; MT and GPR

How to sustain and strengthen the US hegemony?

Hard Power – cf. Soft Power … Military transformation; global posture re-

view (GPR)… Procuring oil reserves…

Debate after the Cold War: In the US for-eign 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?