Foreign Economic Policy for the Next President
Even in a time of terrorism and war, no successful foreign policy can neglect the global economy. The next U.S. administration will therefore need to balance the country's books, liberalize trade, and reduce its reliance on foreign energy. Above all, Washington must shore up domestic and foreign support for globalization, so that it can continue to benefit the United States and the rest of the world.
C. Fred Bergsten is Director of the Institute for International Economics. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs from 1977 to 1981 and Assistant for Economic Policy to the National Security Council from 1969 to 1971. Copyright (c) 2004, Institute for International Economics.
*Editor's note: This is the first in a series of commissioned essays on foreign policy concerns for the next president.
THE DANGERS OF ROLLBACK
At a time when U.S. foreign policy is dominated by war, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, economic concerns are often relegated to the back burner. But in reality, economic policy must be an integral component of any successful foreign policy. Some of its elements, such as the suppression of terrorist financing and support for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, bear directly on the most central national security concerns. The linkage, however, is much broader, because most countries, rich or poor, large or small, depend heavily on the global economy for their prosperity and their stability. Hence, economics ranks at the top of their list of concerns. To continue to be relevant to the rest of the world, the United States must engage effectively on these issues.
As the sole military superpower, the United States may often be able to undertake unilateral initiatives for the sake of national security. But in economic policy, unilateralism is simply not an option. No government, Washington included, can ignore market forces. The European Union's economy is now as large as that of the United States, and the euro has begun to challenge the dollar for global financial leadership. The United States relies on foreign investors -- including the monetary authorities of competitor Asian economies -- to finance massive external deficits, and it depends on oil imported at prices set by producers in other countries. Cooperation is therefore a necessity in the realm of international economics. Indeed, because of the close connection between economics and other international issues, economic policy often restrains the unilateralist tendencies in U.S. foreign policy as a whole.
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
America now faces the prospect of economic conflicts with both Europe and East Asia. The United States and the European Union have already fired the first shots of retaliatory sanctions over their ever-growing trade disputes. On the other side of the world, meanwhile, Asian countries are creating a bloc of their own that could include preferential trade arrangements and an Asian Monetary Fund. These developments could produce a tripolar world and hamper global economic integration. To avert this outcome, the United States must quell its domestic backlash against globalization and reassert its economic leadership in the world. The new Bush administration should make multilateral trade liberalization a top priority -- or it will face unpleasant economic and political consequences as the U.S. and foreign economies slow.
Since 1962, U.S. trade policy has been moving steadily away from the liberal trade approach which had characterized it since 1934 and which has been the objective of every administration since that time.
The Bush administration's recent protectionist measures have attracted intense international criticism. U.S. backtracking on free trade could give other countries an excuse to do likewise. But critics should note that those measures also made it easier for Bush to win "fast-track" negotiating authority from Congress, providing the political base necessary for further liberalization.

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