U.S. Foreig Policy the First

U.S. Foreig Policy

The First World War marked a turning point in the history of the 20th century. It represented the start of a series of conflicts that would only fade away once the Iron Curtain would be lifted in the late 1980s. However, the Versailles Peace Treaty that had sealed the end of the confrontation in 1919-1920 was seen at the time as a breakthrough point for the eventual reconsideration of the world order emerging from the chaos of war. Woodrow Wilson was in this instance the key player that drafted the framework for the next twenty years. His famous Fourteen Points presented at the Paris Conference marked the directions of what diplomacy and foreign affairs would have to look like in the coming decades in order to avoid any future wars between nations. Still, the internal and international situation took their toll on his initial plans for peace which proved to be unsuccessful for the possible regulation of the international order.

On the one hand there were external issues that Wilson, in his idealistic approach, failed to take into consideration. Firstly, the initial point of his presentation demanded for "open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view" (Brigham Young University Library, 1996) Indeed, one of the most important factors that led to the First World War was the hidden diplomatic agreements such as the late 19th century understandings between the French and the Russians, the Germans and the Romanians and other states in Eastern Europe. From this point-of-view, a system based on open diplomacy could have been considered a solution. However, the situation following the war was unsuited to such a political agreement because the relations between the victorious countries had already been based on secret understandings. (Schulzinger, 1998) in this respect, both the French and the British did not want the Germans, as a defeated country, to be present at the peace talks and their sideline agreement automatically rejected Wilson's proposal.

Secondly, Wilson's major challenges were related to the points concerning the territorial reorganization of Europe and the world, in his view, done with respecting the free will of the nations subjected to colonial rule. (Brigham Young University Library, 1996) the American democratic system, based on the sovereignty of the democratic choice of the individual, could have indeed proposed such a solution for putting an end to the subjugation of the peoples in the colonies around the world. But still, this theoretical and idealistic approach was not viable because none of the actual colonial powers were willing to retreat from their colonies. The British and the French are relevant examples in this sense. (Berstein and Milza, 1994) Also, in discussing the idea of self-determination Wilson proposed, he pointed out certain territories such as Alsace and Lorraine between France and Germany, parts of the former Austro Hungarian Empire whose rule would be decided by political forces in the first case and through self-determination in the second case. Such statements presented at a peace conference would only make the negotiation process more difficult and its outcome more insecure. In the end, it led to a simmering situation in these regions and others around Europe which would eventually result in conflict.

Thirdly, the approach Woodrow Wilson had put forward at the Peace Conference was based on the mutual agreement between the states of the world to avoid any military confrontation in the future. The final point which demanded for the creation of a world body to guarantee "political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike" would have implied certain equality between the parts of this Pact. The actual situation on the ground however could not have supported such a claim because the states present in Paris were split between winners and losers of the war and automatically between countries that were satisfied with the status quo the war had established and the ones that were unsatisfied with the post war situation. Part of the first category, France and Britain, as well as the U.S. tried to keep to the results the armed conflict had reached, while Russia and Germany were determined to reshape the map of Europe and reclaim their initial position in the world. From this perspective, it was rather difficult to consider consensus and agreement between major powers that had divergent opinions over the future of Europe and the world. (Kissinger, 1994)