The Clintons: Enlarging the Liberal Order

Episode Narrative

In the late 20th century, a seismic shift rippled through the world. The collapse of the Soviet Union marked not just the end of an era, but the dawn of a new order. The United States emerged from the Cold War as the sole superpower, wielding unprecedented influence on the global stage. This would set the stage for a challenging quest to define a new ideological doctrine that would replace decades of anti-communist fervor. President Bill Clinton, who took office in 1993, would face this monumental task head-on.

Clinton's vision of "democratic enlargement" sought to promote democracy and free markets worldwide. It was an optimistic narrative, asserting that the United States could foster global stability through the spread of democratic values. The initial steps were bold and ambitious. In 1993, President Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, creating the world’s largest free trade zone. This agreement symbolized a faith in market liberalization as a powerful mechanism for global influence. However, this optimism was not without its controversies. While proponents believed that NAFTA would spur economic growth and reduce barriers, critics pointed to significant domestic consequences, raising concerns over labor impacts and economic inequality.

By 1994, under Clinton's leadership, the United States took on a vital role in global trade by leading the creation of the World Trade Organization, or WTO. This institutional framework was designed to govern international trade rules and to sustain American economic leadership in the post-Cold War era. People around the world watched as the U.S. championed a vision of a rules-based global trading system. The stakes had never been higher.

The challenges of the new world order began to reveal themselves more starkly. In 1995, the U.S. intervened militarily in Bosnia, marking NATO's first combat operations since its formation. This intervention represented a pivot from the historical role of NATO as a collective defense mechanism to one of active engagement in humanitarian crises. It was a turning point that signaled the U.S. would not merely observe conflicts but take a stand. However, it prompted further scrutiny and debate over what it meant to act in the name of humanitarianism.

Fast forward to 1999, and the situation in Kosovo escalated further. Under the leadership of the U.S., NATO launched a 78-day air campaign against Serbia. This operation, conducted without explicit U.N. approval, set a precedent — humanitarian intervention could occur even without the green light from international governing bodies. Critics questioned the implications of this decision, fearing it could undermine international norms in favor of unilateral action justified by moral imperatives. Yet, for the Clinton administration, it underscored a commitment to preventing ethnic cleansing and protecting vulnerable populations.

As the world grappled with these complex issues, another significant strategic move occurred. In 1999, the U.S. and China reached a bilateral trade agreement, paving the way for China's accession to the WTO in 2001. This was a calculated gamble by the Clinton administration, aiming to integrate China into the global economy and the liberal international order. Yet, it would later become a source of contentious debate, as critics pondered whether this engagement bolstered Beijing's authoritarian regime more than it did the ideals of democracy and freedom.

The trajectory shifted dramatically in 2001 when the U.S. faced a new, unanticipated adversary: terrorism. The horrific attacks of September 11 thrust the nation into a period defined by the “Global War on Terror.” This new focus did not merely redefine American foreign policy but sought to recast its moral landscape. Nevertheless, the foundational principles of democracy promotion and alliance-building, which had begun during Clinton's term, lingered as a bipartisan commitment to America’s global mission.

Clinton’s legacy did not end with his presidency. Entering the political fray as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton framed her foreign policy around a term that would influence American diplomacy in years to come — “smart power.” This concept aimed to blend military strength with diplomacy and development. It was a call for a nuanced approach, recognizing that hard power alone could not solve the world's multifaceted problems. When she became Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, this vision took a more tangible shape.

As Secretary, Hillary Clinton championed the "Asia pivot," aimed at reallocating U.S. diplomatic and military resources to the Asia-Pacific region. This strategy arose in response to China's rising influence and was seen as a way to reaffirm American presence and partnerships in a crucial area for global stability. The complexities of this shift would range from strengthening alliances with nations like Japan and South Korea to managing tensions with a rapidly modernizing China.

However, the notion of interventionism remained contentious. In 2011, Clinton played an instrumental role in advocating for NATO's intervention in Libya. Citing the “responsibility to protect,” this action was aimed at halting violent crackdowns on civilians. The outcome brought regime change, yet it also unleashed a wave of instability that resonated across the region. The episode illustrated the promise and peril of interventionist policies which, while born from noble intentions, often left in their wake unforeseen chaos.

These varied interventions and diplomatic maneuvers were not without friction back home. By 2013, the U.S. and the European Union launched negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The goal was to deepen economic integration among Western democracies, yet this endeavor ultimately stalled amid political opposition, revealing the growing skepticism toward globalization.

Fast forwarding to the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton represented continuity of the liberal international order amidst an increasingly divided electorate. Her defeat by Donald Trump signaled the emergence of a backlash against globalization and military interventions, a pivotal moment in the saga of U.S. foreign policy that marked a new chapter.

During Trump's presidency, the "America First" policy redefined nationalism on the global stage. It marked a departure from the internationalism that had characterized the preceding years. The administration withdrew from crucial multilateral agreements, laid doubts on NATO, and imposed tariffs on friend and foe alike. This shift not only altered the U.S. stance in global politics but also reflected a more profound cultural divide within the nation.

In 2017, a new National Security Strategy reframed global challenges, positioning great power competition with China and Russia at the forefront. What had evolved into a complex global landscape now required a recalibrated approach to foreign policy. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed underlying vulnerabilities in global supply chains, triggering debates on the sustainability of U.S.-led globalization while American innovation in vaccine development showcased a bright spot amid uncertainties.

As President Biden took office in 2021, he sought to restore U.S. leadership in international institutions and alliances. Yet, the environment was drastically altered; China’s rise and Russia's ambitions presented challenges to the post-1991 order. By 2023, U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan escalated, with both nations framing the future of Taiwan as an existential issue. However, analysts began to question whether the risks of conflict were being portrayed in exaggerated terms, heightening rhetoric for domestic and strategic leverage.

As domestic polarization grew, it increasingly influenced foreign policy. A consensus on the challenges posed by China was evident, but deeper divisions emerged over military support for Ukraine and the broader value of alliances. This contradiction reflected a blurring of lines, complicating America’s ability to project power effectively.

As we gaze into the future, the U.S. remains the world's largest economy, yet its share of global GDP has noticeably decreased since the peak of the 1990s. The rise of China alongside shifting geopolitical dynamics has ushered in a more diffused international landscape, challenging America’s traditional role.

The Clinton family’s political brand encapsulated a vision of optimism grounded in faith in markets, institutions, and military intervention for humanitarian aims. Their story unfolds against a backdrop rich with aspirations and contradictions, embodying the challenges of enforcing a liberal international order.

As we reflect on this tumultuous era, the question lingers: in a world increasingly defined by competition, can the ideals of democratic enlargement persist, or will they be shadowed by new powers and domestic divisions? The echoes of history offer no definitive answers, but the journey of the Clintons through global affairs provides a compelling lens through which to examine the evolution of American foreign policy in a complex world.