Riding the Tigers

American Commercial Diplomacy in Asia

February 1, 1998

Report

Overview

The Asian financial market meltdown and the fierce debate over the U.S. role in a bail-out tend to obscure the huge scale of American exports to the region, currently $200 billion a year. Washington's efforts to promote U.S. exports to Asia are equally controversial, having been tarred by the "Huang-gate" hearings on illegal campaign donations andaccusations of political favoritism and corporate welfare.

The study group report argues that commercial diplomacy--despite its flaws--can be an essential complement to structural reforms in Asia, a tool that can pry open Asian markets to U.S. exports of goods and services. Asia's temporary economic crisis presents a window of opportunity for U.S. commercial diplomacy can promote competitive markets, deregulation, privatization, and official transparency.

More on:

Economic Crises

Trade

Japan

Based on a careful, year-long review by a panel of business, academic, and government experts, the report recommends that commercial diplomacy should be intelligently managed and carefully focused on the highest growth U.S. markets in Asia. It would be a mistake to kill commercial diplomacy, or leave it to wither because of political misdeeds or past errors. There is too much at stake.

More on:

Economic Crises

Trade

Japan

Top Stories on CFR

Middle East and North Africa

CFR experts Steven A. Cook and David J. Scheffer join Amnesty International’s Agnes Callamard and Refugee International’s Jeremy Konyndyk to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

United States

The success of the U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral summit underscored the Joe Biden administration’s dedication to building partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, but Southeast Asian nations are less interested.

Genocide and Mass Atrocities

Thirty years ago, Rwanda’s government began a campaign to eradicate the country’s largest minority group. In just one hundred days in 1994, roving militias killed around eight hundred thousand people. Would-be killers were incited to violence by the radio, which encouraged extremists to take to the streets with machetes. The United Nations stood by amid the bloodshed, and many foreign governments, including the United States, declined to intervene before it was too late. What got in the way of humanitarian intervention? And as violent conflict now rages at a clip unseen since then, can the international community learn from the mistakes of its past?