The world economy has turned on the United States.
After an unprecedented seven years of peacetime growth, aided by declining real energy costs, cheap capital and, in recent years, expanding export markets, the free lunch ended. In 1990 U.S. economic expansion ground to a halt. Rising oil prices, a spreading capital shortage, tightening credit markets and the deadening burden of massive accumulated public and private debt took their toll. Moreover, frictions in the world trading system threatened to make the current recession one of unexpected length and depth.
Throughout the postwar period, the United States was accustomed to being master of its own economic fate. As the world's predominant economic power, America had the authority to mobilize other industrialized economies in time of crisis and to act unilaterally if necessary to protect its interests. But Washington and New York, once the world's preeminent political and financial capitals, must now share the spotlight with Tokyo, Bonn, Frankfurt and London. In this new multi-polar economic world, the United States is still the first among equals. But it no longer has the moral authority or the economic leverage to dictate the course of events. Leadership has of necessity become a collaborative effort. European and Japanese economic and political concerns now place real limits on U.S. action. The U.S. economy and American economic decision-making must now be adapted to an emerging global economy that no longer revolves around the United States.
The waning of the Cold War has changed the environment for U.S. policymaking. The internationalism of the Bush administration is frequently at odds with domestic isolationist elements on both the right and the left. In the past, foreign economic objectives were often subordinated to security concerns in a desire not to alienate allies. But without the constraint of the Cold War, America will not be as reluctant to aggressively pursue its economic goals. At the same time, it will have less leverage because Europe and Japan are less reliant on U.S. military protection. As a result, a more assertive America will confront a more assertive world, a prescription for confrontation.
II
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Related
Recent and forthcoming elections in key Latin American countries come at a time when US relations with many states in the region are particularly uncertain. Discusses six areas which should be addressed by policy-makers (1) the debt crisis (2) the need for co-operation between the USA, Europe, Canada and Latin American countries in ending Central America's wars (3) support of democratic institutions (4) the drug problem (5) the need to rebuild inter-American institutions (6) relations with Mexico and Panama. Concludes that too much attention has been devoted to Nicaragua at the expense of greater concerns, although straightforward solutions are unlikely. Former US ambassador to the Organization of American States, and co-negotiator of the Panama Canal treaties. A substantial criticism of Reagan's policy in Central and South America, and interesting for its view of both regions as one.
We have come a long way from the excesses of "Western economic warfare" against Eastern Europe. The past five years have seen an explosion of East-West trade and Western lending to Eastern Europe, including the U.S.S.R., with Western governments, banks, and exporters competing strenuously for East European business. In the atmosphere of détente, a wide range of political and economic forces generated opportunities for profits, which competitive capitalism exploited with characteristic alacrity and flexibility. The sum total of these diverse initiatives has been large-scale Western export of capital, both financial and real, to Eastern Europe. This new East-West economic interdependence now clearly demands the policy analysis which ideally should have preceded it.
1992 was a year of confusion and drift in the management of the international economy. The numbers for growth, income and employment were bad and public perception turned sour. Uncertain of its standing in the world, the United States provided little leadership in trade or finance. Europe and Japan, preoccupied with their own economic and political problems, were unable to fill the gap. By the fall, a paradox was plain to see: the United States conducted a domestically oriented presidential campaign while evidence mounted that only the United States was in a position to lead internationally for the next decade or longer. As 1993 started there was hope for better days based on U.S. economic recovery and President Clinton's instincts to be an internationalist and a free trader.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.