Multilateralism and Regionalism in the Post-Uruguay Round Era: What Role for the US?

Abstract

In the September issue of The Economist (27 September 1997), C. Fred Bergsten, the director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., argued in favour of granting Bill Clinton ‘fast-track’ trade negotiating authority by the American Congress that would enable the United States to resume active participation in regional and global trade negotiations. The outcome of this, he further argued (The Economist, 18 October 1997), will be decisive for the international trade order for four reasons: 1 The United States will remain “the only plausible leader of far-reaching trade initiatives… ”. The European Union (EU), as the only other potential global leader, will be busy with introducing the European common currency, the euro, and expanding its membership in order to strengthen its leadership in world trade. 2 American withdrawal from initiatives for worldwide free trade would doom all the American intitiatives for worldwide free trade achieved so far, threatening a reversal into protectionism.1 3 “American leadership has been crucial in assuring… the complementarity of regional and global liberalization…. American strategy has promoted regional agreements partly to press the more inward-looking EU and others to move ahead with globalization of world trade. Now that so many regional regional integration agreements are in place or under way, America’s defection could throw the process into reverse”.