Bill Clinton's Doctrine of Enlargement of Foreign Policies

2039 Words Mar 18th, 2013 9 Pages
Bill Clinton’s Doctrine of Enlargement of Foreign Policies
Tommy Wong

American History
Mr. McCarthy
May 2, 2011

During his inauguration from 1993 to 2001, United States President William Jefferson Clinton, also known as Bill Clinton, promoted democracy and improved foreign relationships by using non-aggressive policies. These policies were based on Clinton’s belief and principle, which was also known as the Doctrine of Enlargement. The Doctrine of Enlargement asked for a free competition in global trade and promoting democracy with minimum intervention in foreign political affairs while America to be remaining as the global leader. Clinton had planned and created this doctrine of enlargement before he inaugurated as the President of
…show more content…
The United Nations has not banished repression or poverty from the Earth, but it has advanced the cause of freedom and prosperity on every continent. The United Nations has not been all that we wished it would be, but it has been a force for good and a bulwark against evil.
From his speech Clinton explained the importance of the United Nations is and what effects it has brought and can bring to the world. Clinton actively participated in the United Nations during his presidency as a fulfillment of his doctrine. He believed that reforming the United Nations is an efficient way to make the world a better and safer place. William Clinton, as a part of his Doctrine of Enlargement, encouraged free global trade, which America has always not been able to do. He promoted several plans to allow free trade with other countries. One of which was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in December 1993, which removed the trading barriers with Mexico and Canada. The NAFTA was an extended version of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, and the purpose was to foster trade between the three countries by lowering the tariffs, and thus creating American jobs over the borders. While the agreement sounded beneficial to the American economy, some argued that it would lead to moving American jobs to Mexico, where the wages and working conditions were lower than that of United States. Some also argued that the lack of antipollution laws in Mexico
Open Document