I haven't seen the Financial Times article. But I suggest it may invite confusion and misunderstanding to begin with a focus on "President Clinton," who almost certainly was not the prime mover in this policy initiative. It would make more sense to begin with "The Clinton Administration." But that too would invite misunderstanding since from the beginning it is most unlikely there was an Administration-wide consensus on the policies eventually pursued.

Therefore it seems better to me to break examination of policy initiation down into the various individual and institutional actors within the Administration involved before beginning to discuss motive. Political appointees and key senior career staff actively sympathetic to their political appointee bosses'
objectives in USTR, Commerce, Treasury, State, Defense, the various White House offices involved, and the like.

Robert C. Angel
Institute of International Studies
University of South Carolina