home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
072390
/
0723106.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
5KB
|
117 lines
<text id=90TT1919>
<title>
July 23, 1990: Singing Along With Ol' Blue Eyes
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
July 23, 1990 The Palestinians
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 26
Singing Along with Ol' Blue Eyes
</hdr>
<body>
<p>At the economic summit, Bush discovers that America's wealthy
allies are determined to do things their way
</p>
<p>By Dan Goodgame/Houston--Reported by Richard Hornik/Houston
</p>
<p> When freedom broke out across Eastern Europe last year,
Soviet spokesman Gennadi Gerasimov enunciated "the Sinatra
Doctrine." Each newly liberated Soviet satellite, he explained,
was now free to say, "I did it my way."
</p>
<p> The tune that Ol' Blue Eyes immortalized could have served
equally well as the theme song for the annual economic summit
of the world's richest democracies held in Houston last week.
Just as the Soviet Union's power to ride herd on its neighbors
has been crippled by its domestic turmoil, America's ability
to corral its allies has been hampered by two factors: the
burgeoning economic clout of Japan and West Germany and the
belief that the communist threat to Western security has
receded. Today the U.S., Japan, West Germany, France, Britain,
Canada and Italy--known in diplomatese as the Group of Seven--might just as well be dubbed the Sinatra Seven. Each has
decided to do things its way on such divisive issues as direct
aid to the Soviet Union and China, global warming and free
trade.
</p>
<p> That agreement to disagree was evident on the most important
topic the summiteers discussed: the high tariffs, domestic
price supports and export subsidies used by many nations,
including the entire Group of Seven, to protect their farmers
from more efficient foreign competitors. Experts estimate that
such protectionist measures cost the developed world's
consumers and taxpayers some $245 billion a year. They also
undercut the ability of poor countries to export their
agricultural products. George Bush asked his summit partners
to phase out government support for farm exports (not that Bush
is sure he could sell such sacrifices to farm-bloc legislators
in his own Congress). But the European nations and Japan, whose
rice farmers are the backbone of the Liberal Democratic Party,
insisted that farm subsidies are necessary to protect the
social fabric in their countries. They agreed only to keep
negotiating the matter.
</p>
<p> The problem with such tactics is that unless wealthy nations
begin to open their markets to food exports, markets for
industrial and service exports could soon close down. That
could break the world into rival trading blocs, each dominated
by the strongest economic power in the region. As British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, "There are three regional
groups at this summit: one based on the dollar, one based on
the yen, one on the deutsche mark."
</p>
<p> Though a division into rival trading zones would pose a
threat to future U.S. economic expansion, Bush implicitly
seemed to accept Thatcher's analysis. He noted that the U.S.
could no more dictate what West Germany does to help Moscow
than Bonn, London or Paris could dictate Washington's policy
in Latin America. "I don't feel that everybody has to march in
lockstep," Bush said. "We're dealing with entirely different
times."
</p>
<p> Though the U.S. remains first among the industrial powers,
its pre-eminence is slipping. Until recently, says a White
House official, "we used to be able to precook these summit
agreements" among the "Sherpas" who prepare the agendas for the
heads of governments. These days, however, "everything of
importance has to be decided by the heads of state, so they're
doing real negotiating on the spot. It's like an open political
convention where everybody's trying to line up votes."
</p>
<p> Since the 1940s, the U.S. has been the world's dominant
economic power, using its muscle to promote financial stability
and encourage freer trade. As in the 1920s and '30s, when
Britain was receding from a similarly pivotal economic position
and isolationism precluded the U.S. from filling the vacuum,
no country is entirely fulfilling that role today. A lack of
economic leadership contributed to the breakup of the world
into trading blocs and the onset of the Great Depression. Today
similar consequences could ensue if the richest countries
insist on doing things their way.
</p>
<p>TO EACH HIS OWN
</p>
<p> AID TO THE SOVIET UNION: The U.S. opposed direct financial
help, citing Moscow's military spending, subsidies to Cuba and
slow implementation of free-market reforms. But West Germany
will go ahead with $3 billion in aid.
</p>
<p> AID TO CHINA: Though formal sanctions adopted after the
massacre of student dissidents last year will remain in force,
multilateral loans to promote environmental protection will be
exempted. Japan will revive a $5.4 billion bilateral loan to
Beijing.
</p>
<p> GLOBAL WARMING: The European countries wanted to reduce
sharply emissions of greenhouse gases. But the U.S., with
support from Japan, turned back the move.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>