Isolationist Foreign Policy

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

Isolationism was a part of American policy beginning when George Washington made his Farewell Address in 1796 and lasting to the end of World War II. Factors like thousands of miles of sea between the US and Europe, fear of entangling alliances and a desire to remain autonomous contributed to the overall isolationist sentiment of many Americans. In addition, nativist sentiment has been present throughout American history as a product of isolationism and, among other factors, wage depression and fear of criminal behavior. During World War I, European countries were not only fighting with each other, but many new revolutionary ideas were sweeping the eastern portion of the continent. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin orchestrated the Bolshevik Revolution and founded a new government based on the principles of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. For many Americans, this was terrifying because communism is an expansionist ideology and not only was it spreading to Eastern European countries, but it had the potential to take root in America through Eastern European immigrants. As a result, the Red Scare swept through America due to communism being seen as a threat to democracy, causing a massive spike in nativist sentiment during the 1920’s and 1930’s.

What is the significance of isolationism for American foreign policy? Was it a wise policy for the US prior to 1945?

As this delegate of Spain has objectively analyzed ‘neo-isolationism’, the positive prospect, or purpose of this economical ideology is to financially protect or guarantee profits relatively better than the other units. However, generally, more contradictive, this mutual-interesting phenomenon is going distorted its main details. Possibly divided into two upper issues, Brexit and Trump affair, neo-isolationism can be potential, unwelcoming threat to the globe society when it comes to adhesively large economy markets. As from General Assembly 15th of October, 1997 resolution A/AC.250/1 (Parts I-III) decreed, globalization has further benefits which can be showed by synergistic standpoint, more specifically, sharing each’s attainments and remaining

In all ages, foreign policy is always the big stuff between countries and countries. Sometimes a bad decision on the foreign policy may have a bad influence on the country, sometime a good decision will give the country a better development. After America became independent the two important things that the country have to faced are Domestic affairs which is the events have to deal at home and foreign affairs which is the relationship with other foreign country. Isolationism is the policy appeared during that time which is defined as a “policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining

Foreign policies are a government's approach on dealing with other countries, they are established as a systematic way to deal with issues that may arise . The United States today strive for National Security, free and open trade, world peace, and Democratic governments when intervening with the rest of the world creating many foreign policies. However, many citizens in the United States debate about U.S foreign policy, many believe that involvement with other countries only lead to conflicts while others say that it builds the countries power. One group who greatly despise foreign policy are the Isolationists. They believe that the country should not be involved in the affairs of other countries, “especially aloof from armed conflict elsewhere

everyone, not only because of threats of terrorist attacks or the danger of war, but for far more mundane reasons.” (Kaufman pg. 3). Here Kaufman begins to unravel the differences between these two types of foreign policy. The extraordinary are the issues surrounding war, terrorist attacks, cyber warfare. The mundane, is as simple as the labels on your clothing, but as complex as who is allowed entry into the U.S.. These topics do not elicit as much of a reaction, because as Kaufman argues “the foreign policy decisions that most people know about and follow closely are those that are extraordinary because the stakes appear to be so high.” (Kaufman pg. 3). Although there appears to be strong evidence suggesting the importance of foreign policy, that is not reflected in American culture.

United States' Isolationist Policy During the Inter-War Years After the First World War many people in the United States wanted to turn their backs on European and other world affairs. This has been a policy of isolationism. If this term is used to mean having nothing to do with the outside world, then the USA was clearly not isolationist as it was involved in a number of important international issues. The term can more accurately be used, however, to mean refusing to become involved in international disputes and conflicts.

The main goals of American foreign policy are security, economic prosperity, and to make the world a better place. One of the highest priorities that the U.S partakes in is providing it citizens with a sense of security. In the field of security there are three main positions and policies that can be enacted. A policy of appeasement which in war is avoided by giving in to the hostile powers demands. A policy of preventive war or preemption in which a nation strikes first when a country fears another nation might retaliate against them, and a policy of deterrence which is sort of a mixture of appeasement and preemption in which foreign attacks are discouraged by maintaining an elevated level of military strength. security means being concerned with the actions of other nations and non-state actors. In the past and present the United States in order to prevent or eliminate attacks on the U.S we have developed vast military power and intelligence gathering mechanisms and organizations such as the CIA, FBI, and Homeland security. When preoccupied with security policy makers must protect the transportation infrastructure, maintain a constant food supply and protect the energy supply and maintain cyber security. During the early years of the U.S isolationism was used to protect the U.S, but technology has advanced and

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

Over the past 37 years, Iran has become one of the most complex and stubborn national security strategy issues that the United States has had to deal with. Once a key U.S. ally in the region, Iran is now a chief protagonist. To complicate matters, recently, the U.S. has found itself simultaneously an adversary and a quasi-ally of Iran. An example of this duality would be: on one hand, Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations, like Al-Qaeda, that have attacked the U.S. and its allies. On the other hand, the U.S. has found itself on the same side of the fight with Iran against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Now and in the future the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) will have to consist of a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military action, while also partnering with regional and international partners, if the U.S. expects to contain Iran’s disruptive influence and ensure compliance with the brokered nuclear agreement.

Former Secretary Henry A. Kissinger once said, “No foreign policy - no matter how ingenious - has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.” Kissinger’s statement seem pessimistic in context of the surge of globalization nowadays, but it does shed light on America’s stance when it comes to foreign policy- only born in the minds of a few. In fact, “Americans do not give much thought to foreign policy”. Many Americans only pay attention to foreign policy either when it is contingent on the safety of their families or when their economic, social, physical freedom is in imminent danger. The issue of terrorism, for instance, was only predominantly brought into light when the nation was prompted to address its position in the global spectrum with the attack of 9/11.

Throughout the course of American history, business-related interests have played a predominant role in influencing foreign policy. Foreign policy determines how America conducts its relations with other countries. It is designed to further certain goals such as security and trade. More importantly foreign policy seeks to ensure America’s security and defense and its ability to protect America’s national interests around the world. National interests that shape foreign policy covers a wide range of political, economic, military, ideological, and humanitarian fields. This is the stand the United States has taken in the last decades in regards to foreign policy. While the US government conducts its foreign policy, the public is kept

“…Thus, in order for the United States to pursue war, the threat must be directly related to the survival of the country or be characterized as “evil incarnate”—as was fascism in World War II, communism in the Cold War, and terrorism during the current war on terror...” (Howard, 9.) United States strategic culture continues to be characterized by positive and idealist views in the evolution of human relationships. As a result of United States strategic culture and views on war, the world’s hegemon has developed great skills at problem solving since they are always looking for quick and effective solutions to international conflicts, as a way to minimize the cost of lives and resources, while maintain their hegemonic power. It could be said that the United States looks at international relations as a transaction, by focusing on immediate results.

Too often, the notion/concept of national security is “misinterpreted” and made too narrow. It’s a common belief of many that national security only entails the protection of states borders from outside threats. In recent times, this seems to not be the case, since the dangers that states faces now threatens the life of the individual, therefore, protection of the citizens, their wellbeing, and the laws of the land becomes a priority which links it or makes it human security. States like the US are adjusting their foreign policies to fit this new human security as national security approach. Also, with the world becoming a small global village, states are using less military force to settle dispute. They are reducing the amount of violence they use against one another. Everyone seems to be embracing the notion of peace rather than war and I believe this is so because nations do not want to go back to the hostility and instability of the Cold War era. Using the United States foreign policies (past and current) regarding terrorism, I will be analyzing how they fit or do not fit into the spectrum of human security as national security.