8. Making U.S. Foreign Policy toward China in the Clinton Administration

After the End ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 201-224
1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
John F. Clark

Both continuity and change capture the evolving role of the Clinton White House in the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy toward Africa. Elements of continuity are reflected in a familiar pattern of relationships between the White House and the principal foreign policy bureaucracies, most notably the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and more recently the U.S. Department of Commerce. As cogently argued in Peter J. Schraeder’s analysis of U.S. foreign policy toward Africa during the Cold War era, the White House has tended to take charge of U.S. African policies only in those relatively rare situations perceived as crises by the president and his closest advisors. In other, more routine situations—the hallmark of the myriad of U.S. African relations—the main foreign policy bureaucracies have been at the forefront of policy formulation, and “bureaucratic dominance” of the policymaking process has prevailed. Much the same pattern is visible in the Clinton administration, with the exception of President Clinton’s trip to Africa in 1998. Until that time, events in Somalia in 1993 served as the only true African crisis of the administration that was capable of focusing the ongoing attention of President Clinton and his closest advisors. Given that the United States is now disengaged from most African crises, Africa has remained a “backwater” for the White House and the wider foreign policymaking establishment.


2001 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-209
Author(s):  
Victor D. Cha

The George W. Bush presidency has raised wide speculation about future United States' policy toward the Korean peninsula. The conventional wisdom among pundits in Washington, Seoul and elsewhere is that the incoming administration will switch to a ‘harder line’ regarding the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) and move away from the engagement policy practiced during the Clinton administration. In a similar vein, others have argued that Bush will place a premium on reaffirming and consolidating ties with traditional allies and friends like the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, and Taiwan while downplaying strategic engagement with China. The problem with such punditry is that it is usually overstated and under analyzed. Given the current state of relations, there is little incentive for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward North Korea or with regard to the U.S.-ROK alliance. Moreover, given what is known of the Bush administration's foreign policy vision, there is little evidence upon which to predict an unadulterated hard line swing in policy toward Pyongyang.


Significance Clinton has sought to make foreign policy a key part of the campaign as polls have consistently shown her more trusted on the subject than Trump. However, the role of foreign policy and national security in elections is hotly contested among political scientists and journalists. Impacts Former Republican national security officials' endorsements of Clinton will harm Trump's foreign policy credibility. However, the opposition of internationalist Republican hawks may boost Trump's 'anti-establishment' credentials. In contrast, the Clinton administration can draw from a deep pool of Democratic foreign policy experts, a force for policy continuity. Surveys show that US voters focus more on domestic issues, particularly the economy, terrorism and immigration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document