Foreign Policy Concepts: Isolationism and Internationalism

Since its founding, America has exhibited periods of both internationalism and isolationism, with the nation moving from positions of global involvement to virtual retrenchment. Why is this and what is the history behind it?

It is generally accepted that before America took her place as a great power, the US engaged in a fairly uniform policy of non-engagement, or isolationism. Thomas Paine sowed the earliest seeds of isolationism in his book, “Common Sense”. “It is in the interest of America to steer clear of Europe” he wrote. John Adams later declared that America “must separate ourselves from all European politics.” Finally, George Washington’s Farewell Address enshrined the policy for all time. From Washington, through Jefferson, to the Monroe Doctrine, there has been the underlying notion of isolationism in American political life. There were interactions and relations, but the US mainly remained removed from the internal affairs of Europe, a situation highlighted by the British-French War of the 1790’s. Too busy dealing with the domestic growth of the US and rebuilding the nation after the Civil War, 19th century American leaders chose to stay out of the European arena of power politics and the balance of power system.

In 1916 Isolationist sentiment was so strong that President Wilson had to tour the nation to defeat the non-interventionist in Congress, intent on stalling The National Defence Act. Following the War Americans remained isolationist: the horror of battle had not been intended as a prelude to permanent European involvement and the fighting had changed few minds. Indeed the movement gained more than a number of recruits following the carnage and isolationists were able to block American entry to the League of Nations. America moved to a period of political isolationism, but could not prevent the rest of the world carrying on without it. American investment in the outside world meant that America would be an international power regardless of individual political preferences. Even though America had rejected the League of Nations, by 1922 she had unofficial observers there. Despite the presence of American judges, the nation remained absent from the World Court, seen as too much of an extra-national authority by isolationists. Many pacts and treaties of neutrality were signed at this time, notably the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928 that renounced the use of war as a means of effecting policy.

By 1932, the mood of the nation was such that Franklin Roosevelt had to publicly reject his Wilsonian attitudes towards internationalism to be elected President of the United States. By 1940, even with war raging in Europe, leading Americans remained isolationist. Most notable were Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy. Non-interventionist in the Congress forced the Neutrality Act of 1935 on President Roosevelt to prevent him from selling arms to Britain. They also supported a Constitutional amendment proposing a public referendum before any declaration of war. Such non-interventionist sentiment met with popular approval among the people of the United States. Since World War Two, America has embarked on a global foreign policy that committed it to involvement in every corner of the world. Isolationists however, were vocal critics of the Truman Doctrine of containment.  The era of activism reached its peak in Vietnam, where defeat led to a resurgence of isolationism. Overall however, global activism has dominated American foreign policy since 1945.

Whilst isolationism has always played apart in American foreign policy, a penchant for internationalism has always been evident in American intervention in the political affairs of other nations. It is also evident in efforts to transplant American values around the globe. America has long seen herself as having a special mission in the world, viewing herself as innocent and virtuous in the midst of a tainted world. “The function of American policy is to mark other states up or down according to their obedience to our rules” wrote Professor Arthur Schlesinger. Indeed, according to Schlesinger, American isolationism does not involve American secession from the rest of the world. Its essence was the rejection of commitments to other states, to avoid ‘entangling alliances’ as Jefferson put it.

This dilemma has much to do with policy makers being unable to reconcile the benefits of withdrawing from the world with advantages of reforming it. Louis Hartz has written that America feels the need to “either withdraw from ‘alien’ things, or transform them; It cannot live in comfort by their side.” Whilst the debate between interventionists and isolationists has never been fully resolved, a cycle of behaviour appears to have emerged, with each policy taking a political generation to run its course. This is a prime example of what Arthur Schlesinger refers to as 'the cycles of American history."  The first isolationist phase ended with Washington’s Farewell Address, leading to the early expansionist era that ended with the Monroe Doctrine. The next interventionist era occurred from the time of the Mexican War until the acquisition of Alaska in 1867. The First Word War dominated the next internationalist era, during which America became a world power. The inter- war period was a time of great isolationist sentiment, shaken off by the attack at Pearl Harbour.

As a political philosophy, Isolationism dictates that America serves its interests best by perfecting democracy at home, acting as a beacon for mankind. It also indicates that America’s values impose an obligation to crusade for them around the world, in search of a perfect future. Clearly these can be seen as particularly conservative traits. It is a pessimistic view of human nature and sees inequity between nations as an inevitable feature of international affairs. Foreigners are seen as threatening outsiders. The best way to deal with other nations is to avoid them. Both conservatives and isolationists are reluctant to become involved with others or to assume responsibility for them. They resist legislation that may interfere with a nation’s autonomy and are for the most part inhospitable to social change. The public embraces isolationist policies more enthusiastically than American leaders, and reports indicate that isolationist attitudes are most prevalent among the less educated segments of society.

With the end of the Cold War, the debate over isolationism and internationalism has resurfaced. In 1991, President George Bush used Wilsonian sounding principle to describe his vision of a new world order, dedicated to peace and security, freedom and the rule of law. Bush was such an internationalist that he has been accused of wanting to lead the world rather than just America. The end of the Cold War has resulted in the absence of a discernible threat as a central organising principle. Instead of a well-defined threat, America now faces uncertainty in which it must develop foreign policy. American leaders face unfamiliar foreign policy challenges in dealing with small states armed with weapons of mass destruction. There are also questions over future alliances. Allies and enemies can no longer be defined by their status in the Cold War and military planning must move beyond containment and the avoidance of nuclear war.

President Clinton has remained committed to American activism, claiming that America must "fulfil our responsibility as the world’s sole super-power." This however is not always the view of many in Congress. The view of many of the Republican majority is that there should be major cuts in foreign aid, restricted participation in UN operations, and the end of the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the US Information Agency. This view has been referred to as 'minimalist' by Haass, and favoured only by those who 'take a narrow view of US responsibility and obligations to meet challenges.' Clearly however, such calls do reflect the thoughts and opinions of some Americans, as personified by Pat Buchanan’s ‘America First’ movement and Ross Perot’s Fortress America references in 1992.

The Clinton Administration caused international concern in 1992 when it stated that the nation's domestic problems would require priority not only at home but also abroad. A series of speeches by top administration officials followed in September 1993 to alleviate fears that Clinton would be an isolationist Democrat, intent only on fixing the economy by protectionist methods. Rather, Clinton has proved to be an Internationalist like his predecessor, President Bush. Thus the Administration has emphasized free trade, open markets and the need to promote American 'competitiveness' in overseas markets. Whilst many of these objectives are consistent with an internationalist approach, the main aim of the Administration has been a return to growth and fuller employment in America. Whereas President Bush used foreign policy for its own end, Clinton has employed foreign policy to assist the domestic economy. The current Administration could not accept an isolationist agenda for it has used International policies to fuel the domestic agenda that was the bedrock of Clinton’s 1992 victory. As such Clinton’s foreign policy is closely linked to domestic economic principles. The GATT and NAFTA successes reveal a world view that domestic growth depends on foreign economic policy that promotes US exports and world trade. The goal clearly is to avoid the isolationist trade policies of the 1930s. When Britain’s inability to exercise leadership and America’s unwillingness to do so were primary causes of the Great Depression.

America is too entwined internationally with too many obligations and responsibilities to ever to be able to realise such a goal as isolationism, however the sentiment and the fear of involvement remain. The American actions in Bosnia are exemplary of this. Americans have been reluctant to send troops to help end the conflict and as a result the war has lasted for years. Only with the insurance’s of a definite pull out date have the troops actually gone over. One could put this down to the “Vietnam Syndrome” the US reluctance to involve itself in n unpopular war with the risk of high casualties with no definitive national interest. This can be seen as a form of isolationism.

America is now truly internationalist. The GATT deal has been ratified, the NAFTA deal pushed through. American envoys have brokered deals in Haiti, and Bosnia. Operation Vigilant Warrior has kept Kuwait free. Thus as America approaches the 21 century the issue remains the same; Should America be a global power or should it assume a less ambitious posture? Controversy over the answer is unlikely to end as reasonable people will asses the benefits and costs of intrusive Globalism. Current American duality is expressed by the President himself, declaring that “America cannot turn her back on the world” and yet at the same time stating that “America cannot be the world’s policeman”.

Isolationism and internationalism will continue to be important aspects within American foreign policy making. However, isolationism, although espoused by the minority, is less significant or important now, as explained, the US is now part of a global commitment. The US could not isolate itself even if it wanted to. Too much money has been invested abroad, as has too much foreign money and cultures been invested in the US. As technology improves and the barriers and boarders are weakened, the frontier continues to move outside the US boarders.