Misconceptions that U.S. economic decline is due to other nations' unfair trade practices is provoking protectionism in the Clinton administration that could result in a system of regional trading blocs.
The perception, far exceeding the reality, of American decline is having subtly harmful consequences for U.S. international economic policy. The curse of declinism, manifest from the mid-1980s but contained by the Bush administration, was indulged to excess by Bill Clinton's campaign. Its political success in ending Republican presidential reign adds a lethal edge to the prospect that U.S. leadership will be sacrificed to the myopic and self-indulgent pursuit of "what's in it for us" economic policies in the world arena.
The American mood parallels Great Britain's at the end of the nineteenth century. Germany and the United States had emerged on the world economic scene as major players, threatening the end of the British Century. Today it is Japan that has emerged, threatening to open a Pacific Century. As was Great Britain at that time, America has been struck by a "diminished giant syndrome"--reinforced by the slippage in the growth of its living standards in the 1980s. This affliction has caused a loss of confidence in America's inherited postwar trade policies.
When the syndrome hit Great Britain unilateral free trade had been received doctrine, with Germany and the United States seen, correctly, as embracing tariffs to protect nascent industries. The ensuing debate was about renouncing British unilateralism, which had been practiced with a passion for nearly half a century. In the United States a parallel view has grown--with presumably immense influence in the Clinton administration--that America too has disarmed itself unilaterally in trade while others compete "unfairly" and that the time has come to shift from being patsies who turn the other cheek to becoming aggressive traders.
The British reality of asymmetrical trade barriers, which survived that nineteenth-century debate, is matched today only by America's perception of the same. This perception is grossly disproportionate to the reality, but it is driving Washington toward trade policies that could well endanger the postwar trading system that it has so assiduously nurtured for more than forty years. It rests on a measure of self-serving exaggeration and distortion of facts, all a result of the panic and petulance that attend the diminished giant syndrome. Two examples should illustrate.
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
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
U.S. trade policy is adrift and under siege. America's traditional commitment to open markets is now buffeted by both left and right, from labor unions and environmentalists to big business and "America First" isolationists. Fortunately, the advent of the World Trade Organization offers Washington a chance to balance the protectionist threat. If the United States cooperates with the WTO to settle trade disputes multilaterally, it can dilute both protectionist pressure at home and anti-American resentment abroad. But robust leadership and commitment will be needed, and neither Congress nor President Clinton seems up to the task.
The Defense Department's new report on East Asia reads as if the Cold War is ongoing. For Japan, the report signals U.S. acceptance of its ruinous trade deficits. For other Asian nations, it signals the hollowness of American superpower pretensions. The report masks the failure of the Clinton administration's trade policy. By insisting Japan remain a U.S. protectorate, Washington encourages Tokyo's reactionaries. The real threat to Asian security is not China but U.S. distrust of Japan as a true ally. Cold War military power is irrelevant to the economic challenges posed by East Asia's dynamism. Someone should tell the Pentagon.
Japan, Europe, and others worry that the United States is backing away from its historical commitment to international rules and reverting to arm-twisting and private deals on trade. So long as governments intervene unfairly, Washington cannot demobilize. But as the world's most open market and a burgeoning exporter, America has the most to gain from multilateral decisions to lower trade barriers and increase exchange. During the past half-century it has shown the way, and it will continue to lead in shaping a multilateralism for the millennium.

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