THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON: ISOLATIONIST OR GLOBALIST?

This article provides an early assessment of the foreign policy of the new administration of US President Bill Clinton, addressing the central debate of whether it would pursue a globalist or a more isolationist path. It examines the context of Clinton's election, which was won primarily on a domestic agenda of economic renewal ("It's the economy, stupid"). The study analyzes the early rhetoric and policy priorities of the administration, noting the strong emphasis on geo-economics and the promotion of American competitiveness. The research explores the key foreign policy challenges facing the new president, from the ongoing crisis in Bosnia to the relationship with Russia and the challenge of managing a rising China. The paper argues that while the administration's primary focus was domestic, the realities of America's position as the sole superpower would inevitably pull it towards a globalist and interventionist foreign policy. The analysis concludes that the Clinton foreign policy was likely to be a pragmatic and often reactive blend of both impulses.

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the first post-Cold War president, sparked an intense debate about the future direction of US foreign policy. This paper analyzes the central question of this early period: would the new administration, elected on a domestic mandate, retreat into a form of neo-isolationism, or would it embrace its role as the leader of the new global order? The study begins by examining the intellectual currents of the time, from the triumphalism of the "end of history" to the more cautious calls for America to focus on its significant problems at home. The core of the paper is an analysis of the early signals from the Clinton administration. It highlights the creation of the National Economic Council as a sign of the new primacy of economic issues in foreign policy. It also examines the administration's initial reluctance to become deeply involved in foreign crises like Bosnia, which seemed to confirm the isolationist thesis. However, the paper argues that this was only part of the story. It points to the administration's commitment to enlarging the community of market democracies and its active diplomacy on issues like NATO expansion and Middle East peace as evidence of a strong underlying globalist impulse. The findings suggest that the Clinton foreign policy would not be easily categorized. It was likely to be a pragmatic, and sometimes inconsistent, synthesis, driven by a desire to focus on domestic renewal but constantly confronted with international crises and the unavoidable responsibilities of being the world's sole superpower.