Isolationism in United States foreign policy history

¶ … United States engaged in a world wide war against terrorism in the wake of September 11th, it is believed that we have become much more isolationist in our economic and foreign policies. Many view this as a reactionary step to the events of September 11th, however this view obscures a longstanding and growing set of dysfunctional relationships that have been developing between the U.S. And other nations. Ever since the post Cold War era, the United States seems to have become disconnected with the rest of the world, ignoring their particular interests and perspectives and engaging in our own set of strongly isolationist and unilateral actions. Although it is true that the Bush Administration has aggravated this circumstance through much of its own internal policies, the current administration cannot be blamed entirely for the current state of American foreign policy. The current disdain for multilateral institutions and cooperatives have been the standard operating norm of the past decade. The failure to connect with the international community on fundamental issues cannot be attributed to one party or one doctrine, but rather the guilt is shared by administrations and congressional leaders in both parties. The sad fact that America is at the forefront of modern globalizations as corporate and social entities, yet faces strong governmental resistance on a political level is truly disturbing. This analysis will examine the current strategies that the United States has adopted in regards to its foreign policy agenda. The effects on the United States and the rest of the world in the long-term cannot be correctly anticipated, but a detailed cost and benefits of current American isolationist policies will shed light on the predictable outcomes.

The first and most obvious question to consider, is when the current American attitude towards isolationism began. After all, it was a strong consideration for world affairs and multilateral cooperatives that resulted in the Allies victory in World War II. Even in the decades after, American interest in containing the Communist bloc led to unprecedented creations of multilateral protectionism and aid agreements. No defining events seems obvious that would attribute the current state of isolationist policy to something tangible and concrete. Sanford Ungar noted in a research analysis in 1985 that "the United States is estranged from the world - separate, aloof more alone than even the most cynical of pessimistic observers might have predicted in the heyday of American postwar power" (Ungar, 120). Ungar's research indicates that as early as 1982, with Reaganomics still the foundation of economic recovery in America, the country's foreign policy approach turned decisively isolationist.

Many within the academic world point to the rise of multilateral initiatives in the wake of September 11th to contradict Ungar's 1985 assessment. However, a deeper examination of international relations show that several events stand out in the review of American isolationism. A look at only a few examples will show that America has deeply lost touch with the fundamentals of international sentiment. In 1982, the Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted within Congress to create a provision that would make the precious resources of the oceans a common global treasury for all humanity. Many saw it as the next step towards creating resource equality within the world of entrenched superpower resource consumption. This convention, which received strong support from every international partner, was rejected by the U.S. government. Today, the U.S. makes up more than 60% of all ocean drilling in the world, stripping resources from countries that desperately needs them for economic and political infrastructural development. In 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was ratified by the governments of over 150 countries, the United States was not one of them. In 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was ratified by every member of NATO and Russia, this policy would have halted all nuclear testing and further nuclear weapon development programs. The United States congress rejected it by a strong opposing majority. These are only a sampling of the broken connections that the United States government has fostered in the past twenty years. Although not one can be pointed to as the core issue that caused the current isolationist perspective, a collective examination of these policies reveals the true nature of American foreign policy of the past three administrations. These connections have deepened anti-American sentiment on the world stage and aggravated our estrangement from the world community as a whole.

An examination of the policies of the past twenty years show that while the majority of all international accords and actions are condoned and supported the American general public as well as the nation's mainline churches, and spiritual organizations, they have all been rejected by the government. Together, these actions serve as broken bonds that other developing and developed nations view as an extremely unilaterial, isolationist and enstranged foreign policy agenda. The warning are only now beginning to pile up as, the American foreign agenda has become more exposed in the wake of September 11th and our fruitless Iraq invasion and occupation. In one strong criticism of current American foreign policy, Joseph Nye, former State and Defense Department official writes, "on intrinsically cooperative issues, effective solutions cannot be achieved except by multilateral means" (Nye, 32). Nye notes that are many such agenda items within the next half century that will require the true cooperation of all nations to achieve. Among them are such issues solving the global warming crisis, eliminating the spread of infectious diseases, the instability of the global financial market, current deficits and imbalance in world trade, the elimination and reduction of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of criminal syndicates, growing narcotic trafficking, and the spread of fanatical terrorism. All of these are examples of problems that the United States government cannot pursue unilaterally, they will take a consortium of effort from many different nations. However, this is not to say that the current policy towards isolationism have not reaped benefits for the United States. To the contrary, isolationist policy has been the root of much of America's current wealth and economic progress.

The beginning of American's policy decisions towards an isolationist agenda is impacted by two practical considerations, the safety of the United States, and the ability to mobilize unprecedented economic growth. It is both of these considerations that led to the American understanding and trend towards isolationism. There have been many benefits to the United States as a result of its isolationist foreign policy agenda. The first key benefit is the increased security on the national stage through a strong mobility of the military. While other nations have limited themselves through several impacted treaties that leads to disarming nuclear and conventional weaponary, these policies have little or no affect on the current American government. The United States under President Bush have continued to develop new technology additions to nuclear weapons to make them safer and more efficient, the result of our approach towards military isolationism has made the distance between the United States military and other military superpowers a substantial gap. As a result, the American military has enjoyed two significant benefits for the United States. The first is the creation of strong influence in other nations that seek American military protection, which has dramatically increased the leverage of the United States in foreign affairs. One of the principle examples is the current U.S. military presence in South Korea. Unable to sustain themselves as a military force against the onslaught of a hostile North Korean government, the United States has become the chief protector of the border between South and North Korea. Implicit within this agreement of protectionism is the strong affirmation of support from South Korea to the United States government and infrastructure. South Korea is the third biggest buyer of U.S. currency, making China and South Korea the two biggest Asian supporters of the U.S. economy. South Korea also has followed the lead of the United States in most of its attempts to engage bilateral agreements in the United Nations. Our ability to mobilize a strong military unconstrained by international convention has given the American government the upper hand in world affairs for a prolonged period. By instituting an unfettered approach to military expansion and development, including nuclear proliferation, satellite technology, and even espionage, the United States has created a strong American umbrella around all of North and South America. Using this leverage it has led to many ancillary benefits.

One of the primary benefits that America's current isolationist policy has created is its current grip on the world's resources. Although America is most known for its strong plays for energy resources around the world, our internal natural resources are not insubstantial. The United States, were it to fully access its internal resources in both the continental United State as well as Alaska would become the third biggest supplier of oil to the world, as well as place in the top five in almost every natural resource category. However, America has never had to fully industrialize its domestic natural resources, precisely because it plays a very strong game of economic monopolizing on the world stage. Currently the United States consumes more than 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, which is more than 25% of the world's total oil consumption. Through its isolationist policy agenda, the U.S. government has been able to leverage its military and economic might to control most of oil production in South America. Instead of attempting to restructure the financial infrastructure of South American oil producers such as Panama, Ecuador and Peru, the United States has promoted a policy of singular reliance on U.S. aid. As a result, the United States receives the majority of advantages conferred by these country's vast oil supplies. Similarly, the United States has used its military might to create strong unilateral connections with OPEC nations as well. Subtly, the United States has reached secret agreements with the Saud family of Saudi Arabia to maintain their current royal hierarchy with U.S. military protection as long as they promote a strong pro-U.S. agenda. In a not so subtle fashion, the United States invaded Iraq and in doing so has secured the majority of oil contracts in Iraq for U.S. companies and oil producers. Although on the surface level, it might appear that these foreign agendas are in fact creating bilateral dependencies between the United States and key allies, however a closer examination reveals otherwise. The United States leverages its military and economic might to hold oil producing nations hostage. All of the extracted benefits of U.S. foreign policy with such oil producers goes directly to the United States and a few key role players within foreign countries. The simple fact remains that the U.S. isolationist policy decreases the price of oil in America, and creates strong unilateral relationships with oil producing nations.

The economic benefits of an isolationist approach to foreign policy do not stop with resource access. The increased globalization in Europe through the European Union and Asia have led to bilateral trade and living standards agreements between countries. The United States have maintained its position against attempting to deter domestic companies from access and exploiting foreign markets. As a result, the U.S. economic boom of the past decade has a strong foundation in the exploitation of labor in both Africa and Asia. These economic incentives have led to billions of dollars of profit for American companies, which primarily rely on resource and labor exploitation in the Asian sector to maintain record profits within the United States. European countries through the European Union have already signed bilateral agreements to maintain a standard living wage for all employees within member states. The United States, though facing pressure to perform a similar bilateral agreement with many countries have blatantly refused. it's general strategy towards exploitation of foreign countries to achieve record institutional profits is a long standing tradition. Similarly, the United States was the only nation not to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This protocol finally set targets for reducing the "green-house gases" that contribute to global warming. Despite being the largest source of green house gas emissions, the United States has opposed such action in order to allow American industries to flourish and reach new levels of economic growth. Another obvious benefit of American isolationist policy are the protection of domestic markets and the exploitation of foreign markets. The United States government continue to maintain a strong policy of institutional protection for American companies. The government demands large import duties on grain items and other agricultural production, while providing subsidies to U.S. agricultural producers. The result is that Asian, African and Eastern European agricultural producers cannot compete at a fair market price within the United States. Although many complaints have been leveraged against the United States for these actions, the government continues such industry protection, seeing it as a necessary step to maintaining the infrastructure of American self-sustainability.

The economic, military, social benefits that come from isolationism may look significant in the short-term. After all, America has just experienced the most prosperous twenty year period in its entire history since the start of what Ungar notes as "America's isolationist movement." The advantages conferred by isolationism in foreign policy agendas however are not permanent, nor are they beneficial in the long-term however. It is important to note the cost of the current U.S. isolationist policies. On a larger level, the greatest problem with the current U.S. position is that it has distanced the international community and led to global condemnation. In the post War World II era, the United States was viewed with almost unanimous approval by all democratic nations. Not only was this nation actively engaged in the rebuilding of Europe and Asia, it was lending its hand to the ideological struggle against communism. However, in a recently released survey conducted through BBC, only 23% of the world still has a favorable view of the United States. This dramatic shift has severe implications for the future of the United States. International sentiment has a strong play on the strength of the United States for several reasons, first it decreases the likelihood of bilateral agreements and multinational cooperatives, second it causes alienation and hatred, and finally it leads to severe financial instability for the United States.

The problem of bilateral agreements could be the most lasting destructive problem of isolationist policy making. The United States has refused to concede on most of the most important social, environment, economic, and judicial agreements that the EU and the rest of the world has attempted to initiate. Emblematic of this is the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which deals with trying "crimes against humanity" including genocide and war crimes. Although it was adopted by 120 nations including all NATO allies, the United States voted against it. The lack of support America has shown towards bilateral agreements implies that other nations will also turn its nose at any attempt by the United States to launch similar initiatives. The problem for the United States is that it no longer has operative problems that can be solved solely through its own its devices. The global war on terrorism, drugs and syndicates are but three problems that can only be solved through the joint ventures of hundreds of nations. The United States however, due to its isolationist policy have had little success with bridging multinational initiatives to solve these problems. The long-term implication of isolationist policy is that the international community will turn its back on the United States just as the U.S. has turned its back to the rest of the world. In the long-term this is detrimental to the U.S.

The political implications of isolationism are already provocative enough, but the greater long-term damage could very well be social in nature. The United States is a mecca of different cultural, ethnic and social identities. Much of America's success in innovation, business and overall economic growth can be attributed to the influx of foreign talent into the U.S. system. However, the past twenty years of ill-sentiment on the world stage has made the United States a much less desirable and Utopian destination for immigration. Since 2000, foreign student enrollment within American graduate university programs have declined by over 50%. Although immigration is still proceeding at a very fast pace, the majority of immigrants into the U.S. are now low education, basic workers, rather than high grade intellectuals. The position of isolation has created a culture of alienation of the world stage, eliminating America's attractiveness to the very people which drives U.S. innovation and economic growth.