Isolationism refers to the populist wave that sweeps a nation to the point that it seeks to ideologically separate itself from the other nations. Most countries of the world seek to open their borders to trade and allow immigration with other countries. The U.S., on the other hand, has had a history of isolationism activities. However, Braumoeller (2010) argues that ‘American isolationism is a myth,’ noting that the U.S. was actively invested in the security affairs of its European neighbors. Contrary to the opinion of Braumoeller (2010), American isolationism is not a myth as the country’s foundations are established on isolationism, has actively engaged in world wars, possesses rigid immigration policies, and has noninterference with Arab countries. The country also has isolated itself with regard to climate change and has adopted a more trade isolationist stance following China’s meteoric trade rise.
Similar to the ideologies of freedom and democracy, isolationism has been a core feature of the country dating back to its founding fathers. Since before its independence, the U.S.’s political creed has been isolationism. During the battle for independence, the nation was ready to risk loss in order to avoid having to rely on the French, who offered assistance (Delamer and Ferreiro, 2020). After achieving independence, the country would reaffirm its isolationist worldview by severing all ties with European nations. The nation would continue to support this concept during its three conflicts, including the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. In his farewell address, George Washington advised that a nation’s international reach should be limited to commercial affairs and political ties should be kept separate (as cited in Lukinmaa, 2021). With the Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, which severed the country’s ties to France, George Washington would further push the country towards isolationism (Ray, 2019). The third president of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson, echoed his predecessors with a creed of “peace, trade, and honest friendship with all countries, entangled alliances with none” (State.Gov, 2022, para. 2). This reflected the country’s ideology for the over one hundred years between independence and World War I.
Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II, the country continued to participate in non-military isolationism. Braumoeller (2010) argues that the U.S. was not isolationist per se, considering it took an international interest in the security of its international partners. However, the country was concerned with the security of Europe following the rise of the Nazi party and that their military had the capacity to sustain an invasion of its neighbors (Braumoeller, 2010). In this case, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. exercised security relations according to the Monroe Doctrine, which coincidentally only affirmed its regional isolationism of the Western Hemisphere (Klein, 2017). In the years leading up to the Second World War, the public would receive details about the true Nazi ideology but public opinion would only shift in favor of the war following the steady progress of Germany going from 30% in 1939 to 66.1% in 1941 only after the French surrender (Braumoeller, 2010). Moreover, prior to the attack, there was growing calls for isolationism by the America First Committee. This isolationism would be strengthened by the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which would have required the U.S. to join the League of Nations (Klein, 2017). As such, the U.S. was isolationist only up to the point where their interests were at stake.
The U.S. exercises isolationism through immigration policies and border rules. Immigration has always been a perilous issue for the nation. Following its independence from the European powers of the old guard, the country tried to maximize its resource exploitation by promoting a constant influx of European immigrants. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, however, the nation’s attitude toward immigration shifted beginning with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Chen and Xie, 2020). With the passage of the Immigration Act in 1917, immigrants from Southeast Asia and the Middle East were prohibited, and literacy requirements were implemented to restrict European immigration (Yuill, 2021). This anti-immigration sentiment and strict policy adherence holds true today. Even though they can join the U.S. military, people who live in the Samoan territory cannot become legal U.S. citizens because of their isolationist views (Robertson, 2021). Meanwhile, the U.S. has been imposing firmer immigration policies regarding immigrants from Latin America in the past decade. The country implemented the use of immigrant detention centers in such countries as Mexico to limit the number of refugees and asylum seekers entering the country (Garcini et al., 2020). Therefore, the growing anti-immigration and protecting American jobs sentiment going on in the U.S. highlights the extremes of isolationism that the country has experienced.
As a result of the events following the 9/11 attacks, the United States has adopted an isolationist stance towards Arab countries. Before the tragic events that would become known as the 9-11 attacks on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, the country’s ties with the Arab world were positive. The U.S. established ties with the Arab world initially to combat the Ottoman Empire and then to ensure a stable flow of oil from the area, of which the U.S. was the major consumer. The nation would arm Mujahideen militants to resist the Soviet invasion, but they would later be responsible for the 9-11 attacks as part of the Al-Qaeda organization (Mihai, 2021). Coupled with wars in Syria and Iraq, a hostile Iran and the rise of such extremist militias as the Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the U.S. would succumb to fear and retreat into a cocoon that would discriminate against Arab immigration. After invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the country dreaded a further onslaught. Further action in the wake of the Afghanistan withdrawal will show that the government had closed its borders to both Afghans and Iranians.
In current times, the U.S. has embraced an isolationist posture on climate change and the future of the global environment. Since the late 20th century, when scientists began to sound the alarm about climate change, the country has consistently rejected climate restoration initiatives (Zhang et al., 2017). The economy is mostly fueled by fossil fuels, with automobiles serving as the principal mode of mobility. Added to the mechanism of policymaking that permits lobbying by big oil, this implies that what is essential is not done. Former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in 2017 (Zhang et al., 2017). Furthermore, 196 countries joined the pact to limit their greenhouse gas emissions (Zhang et al., 2017). Case in point, the country is the second-most polluting nation in the world, behind China. China’s population is approximately four times that of the U.S. As a consequence, President Biden would rejoin the accord in 2021, but this does not account for the expected expenses of greening the nation (Zhang et al., 2017). As such, the return to normal is in danger, though, if the country keeps increasing its oil production and use.
The U.S. has adopted a rigid trade isolationist philosophy in the modern world, which is propelled in part by the offshoring of American industries to China and the rest of the globe. These activities fueled the ascent of Donald Trump and his “Make America Great Again” mantra (Zhang et al., 2017). The growing perception among the populace was that American manufacturing was moving to China at the expense of American employment. As a result of the escalating antagonism with China and Donald Trump’s election, the president would engage in a trade war with China in the name of protectionism. His successor, President Joe Biden, who would take the same stance toward China, would exacerbate the problem (Zhang et al., 2017). As a result, the country withdrew its soldiers from Afghanistan as a consequence of the escalating China crisis and the country’s frustration with the protracted conflict. The prevalent belief is that the U.S. has policed the world for too long and that it is now time for it to concentrate its efforts on improving the regions inside its boundaries, hence the isolationist viewpoint.
However, despite the fact that current trends and data indicate that the U.S. is an isolationist nation, there are arguments against it based on the country’s expanding relationships with other developed countries. In an effort to militarily isolate the USSR from the rest of the world, the U.S. formed strategic partnerships with key European members. With the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, this attempt would be undertaken. The United States would also enter into defensive pacts with Japan, South Korea, and Australia (Evans, 2021). This doctrine supports Braumoeller’s argument that foreign security concerns are equal to internationalism (Braumoeller, 2010). However, this reasoning is flawed since it misses the key feature of all of these defensive alliances: that the United States is the dominant partner in each of these agreements. By letting the U.S. have all the power through their huge military budget, NATO members and other partners have created offshoots of U.S. dominance that make it look like they are all working together for security.
Another argument against American isolationism is the country’s extensive commercial partnerships with other nations and the advantages they have given to those countries. The country has had bountiful trade agreements with several countries In line with the revisionist school belief that the U.S. is creating an economic empire (Braumoeller, 2010). The Asian tigers, for example, are the countries that the United States chose to support. Consider the tremendous expansion of South Korea, Japan, and China, for instance. These nations’ growth would increase if the U.S. provided them with desirable trade deals and assistance. However, the counterargument would be that these countries were American enterprises in the war against communism and that isolationism was always a possibility. In the 1980s, Americans were most concerned that Japan was taking advantage of the country, resulting in increased levies against Japanese merchants (Shi, 2022). China and the expanding anti-China policies were subjected to the same method. At these times, the American philosophy switched from free trade to protectionism and a need to isolate from free trade.
Lastly, America’s anti-isolationism is grounded on its security policy after WWII. The fundamental concept underlying the isolationist policies of the United States was to avoid participation in foreign conflicts that did not serve American interests but benefited the old European elite. Braumoeller (2010) echoes the historians’ claim that the security policies of the USA after WWII do not conform to isolationism. The USA engaged in several wars in Latin America, Europe and Asia, mostly in favor of regime change (Sposito & Ludwig, 2021). However, further inquiry would disclose that the U.S. engaged in these wars and regime transitions for its own self-interest. The United Fruit Company, which operated in these nations, serves as an example; regime change was typically preceded by nationalist moves to nationalize the United Fruit Company (Sposito & Ludwig, 2021). Meanwhile, on the eastern bloc, the USA’s war-mongering could only be said to be in response to countering the USSR. This justifies that the USA was only looking out for its interests and not set on internationalism.
In conclusion, the U.S. government implements its isolationist policy by not engaging in conflicts, excluding Arabs and Chinese, reshoring American firms, and withdrawing from Afghanistan. In the U.S., isolationism has been a key foundation of the country for as long as the government has existed, if not longer. The trouble with American isolationism is that it is veiled in numerous forms that could be difficult to divorce from reality. The nation has had a colorful past, separating itself from the Europeans. However, a rise in commerce and the necessity to combat the USSR caused the United States to abandon its isolationist stance and become a worldwide power. All of this, however, was for imperial expansion. The current world is one in which the American people are tired of empire-building and waging eternal wars in nations they cannot point out on a map. Thus, in a cycle of regular events, the U.S. has reverted back to isolationism to focus on their country and the people’s needs.
References
Braumoeller, B. F. (2010). The myth of American isolationism. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(1), 349–371. Web.
Chen, S., & Xie, B. (2020). Institutional discrimination and assimilation: Evidence from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Web.
Delamer, K. J., & Ferreiro, L. D. (2020). Brothers at arms: American independence and the Men of France and Spain who saved it. Naval War College Review, 73(1), 1-4. Web.
Evans, D. (2021). Strategic arms control beyond new start: Lessons from prior treaties and recent developments. Web.
Garcini, L. M., Domenech Rodríguez, M. M., Mercado, A., & Paris, M. (2020). A tale of two crises: The compounded effect of COVID-19 and anti-immigration policy in the United States. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(1), 1-5. Web.
Istomin, I., Bolgova, I. V., Sushentsov, A. A., & Rebro, O. G. I. (2020). Patterns of NATO Evolution: Achievements and Prospects. Mirovaia Ekonomika I Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 64(1), 26-34. Web.
Lukinmaa, V. (2021). Warnings in George Washington’s farewell address: Parallels in policies from the 18th century. Web.
Ray, C. (2019). The concept of statesmanship in John Marshall’s life of George Washington. Humanitas, 32(2), 56-77. Web.
Robertson, C. B., & Manta, I. D. (2021). Integral citizenship. Texas Law Review, Forthcoming, 10(7), 1-49. Web.
Shi, Y. (2022). A review of non-tariff measures with particular focus on the US and China practices. Theoretical Economics Letters, 12(3), 601-628. Web.
Sposito, I. B., & Ludwig, F. J. (2021). Mapping Inter-American struggle (1946-2001): An overview on military conflict and economic embargoes. Revista de Paz y Conflictos, 14(1), 35-59. Web.
State.Gov. (2022). Milestones: 1937â-1945 – Office of the historian. Web.
Zhang, Y. X., Chao, Q. C., Zheng, Q. H., & Huang, L. (2017). The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8(4), 213-219. Web.