Research Paper on Isolationism

Introduction

Isolationism is a generally a policy of not participating in the international relations on politics and economy. It puts together non-intervention in military guidelines and protectionism on the economy. As a belief, isolationism originated form united states' in attempting to intervene on war, allowing organizations and alliances. Interventionism on the other means that a state gets involved ii nth affairs of other states, calling for stronger political and economic cooperation for the good of the international community. In other words, isolationism holds a foreign policy that the state should distance itself from other states whereas an intervention foreign policy means coming close to other nations; this means interacting with the states not necessarily dictating what they should do or invading them. This paper purposes to examine how competition has impacted, both physically and negatively, American as well as world history by comparing the two opposing sides ( Isolationism and Interventionalism) and how they have impacted and impacted history. (Griswold et al., 2015)

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the united state, isolationism was anchored on neutrality basis. Neutrality, in international law, refers to any policy that conforms to the non-engagement in wars. The role of neutralism broke down at the occurrence of the two world wars which showed literal interdependence among the states. Apart from just economic targets, military targets also covered every state which led to the rejection of the suggestions of neutrality at hand. Later on, America's isolationism broke down in the twentieth century. It was after they started entering into treaties to strengthen commercial supremacy.

Moreover, the Spanish American war caused the US to get alliances and commitment in the far east together with the Caribbean. After this course, US isolationists in the US started to decline its influence and power when they (US) started supporting their friend states amidst the First World War. By 1930s, interventionism finally reached Us, and it took root for their goal to curb dictatorship that was on the rise. Rising of interventionism in the US caused people to develop a sense of concern in reviving the economy of the state. To a smaller extent, there are those citizens that still favored isolationism for the fear that another war would bring in the dictatorship. The depression or the bridge building between the US and Britain pushed them together to boost their withering economies.

Isolationism between Japan and US at one point became intense due to continued aggressions of Japanese military and the government and in an attempt to pursue certain territories caused conflicts and hostilities between the two states which led to America oil embargoes. The Japanese attack on the Perl Harbor marked the end of isolationism in the US. Because of the intensified Japanese attacks against US allies, both sides were prompted to form alliances and collaborations against each other; they came to treaties. Because of this US allowed to engage in military alliances and collaboration. (Atlantic treaty organization). It saw America intervening in wars against the Vietnamese and Koreans.

The emergence of US as a superpower after the Second World War marked the start of interventionism. The downfall of France compelled American president by then Roosevelt to become linked to other nations by sending them aids especially those that were allied to the US. America became more involved in many other foreign relations since they were an active participant for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They were increasing external relations to curb the spread of communism got them more indulged in global expansion. It later saw to it that communism as a cultural factor got interrupted with to bring the wellness in the society. The collaboration of the US and other allied states increased the proper relationship among the countries. It contributed to an economic boost.

Furthermore, the developments we see today in some of these countries that received aids are as a result of interventionism. The emergence of US to a superpower is also regarded as a global benefit; this is after the Second World War, where we see that the United States' spot within the world economic and political divided shifted significantly with time. It became of benefit in contribution to global politics as observed when it provided interventions whenever it was in a position to intervene. Nowadays, the changes in each input to conflict and war, security or resistance to terrorism are fueled by the intensity of attention that the state displays in a region, the relationship the state has with America (Lewis, 2014). In this regard, connections can be made between global conflicts and isolations or intervention decision be enacted by the US government.

The colonial era was the height of interventionism, and this brought about constant warfare, conflicts, upheaval, strife, both for the colonized entities and the colonizing. It equated to disagreement and fought for power with other colonial states or powers which resulted in comprehensive intricating policies and conflicts. Interventionism initially resulted in lots of death and destruction of properties. Later on, as history advances, interventionism has been regarded as one of the routes through which countries got access to new development and civilization. It played a significant role in aiding help to other nations that were not in a position to adequately defend themselves against their enemies. Loss of lives and destruction of properties eventually led to a big door opening to expansion and development of countries' economy and infrastructure. America's sovereignty has been preserved as a result of interventionism and not isolationism. It has been facilitated through the international state system; this has kept the US on the top, and as a hegemon hence they can assert their will and desire and protect their interests without much opposition. The US can hinder movement of other countries because of their much involvement worldwide, which means many benefits can be affected by a single issue. Interventionism helps the US to protect their all-time interest in ways that not practically possible under an isolation regime. For the rest of the world, interventionism has been and continues to be of great importance. It is the best for America's interests to integrate the current international system, and comparing an international system under America to a worldwide netwosytemrk under any state, would be best for the wellbeing of humanity and global prosperity and progress.

Isolationism would state that because the Americans citizens are the ones who fund the American state, toil hard to make it successful, and often give forth their lives for its defense all attention should be given to them. For the US to put interests of other people in front of theirs will be considered a betrayal of their loyalty. Also, the world system works best when all states take of their people and that no country or an international organization can look after every individual in the world. On the other hand, interventionism will mean that if the US focusses on its soil, it will lose many of its foreign resources and business opportunities which would be a limitation to supporting the American way of life. And that while nationality is essential, humanity runs even more profound than imagined. The US would not be able to uphold its own rules of freedom and justice it gave a dump ear on ethnic cleansing, holocaust and war crimes. It confirms that interventionism has contributed much to history advancement especially in the growth of different economies of different countries and the protection of such countries gains predicaments. Most importantly it ensures there is humanitarian assistance in a case where there is a humanitarian crisis. (Bacevich, 2013)

In my view, I would say that interventionism is on the victor side, it is on the winning side against isolationism. I prefer interventionism for its greater good. There still a lot of global problems and issues including terrorism which cannot be prevented with an enormous army ever or forces. Also, soldiers cannot stop climate change, the spread of illnesses, production and transport of illegal drugs and flows of refugees. The US should work with the international community to deal with these issues so that it can help establish collaboration and agreements to handle these problems wherever and whenever they come. I have just learned that at one point the US had decided to adopt isolationism system, but later on, it considered otherwise for its betterment and the good of other nations. The benefits of involving interventionism far much outweigh the isolationism. One interesting thing is learning is that presently the US and any other country cannot work with isolationism regime. A state cannot operate on isolation especially a superpower nation like America. (Spykman, 2017)

Conclusion

It will be a big mistake to think that America can solely support itself in fuel and other essentials. International trade is vital to American' current standard of living, and this means trading partners and trade routes need protection. It is also unrealistic that America should stop intervening abroad. First and foremost, the issue with frequent terrorism will not go away if the US brought back its soldiers from wherever they have been deployed. If this happens, it will give US enemies a chance toagin set up bases in foreign countries once again and to find the backers for their plans. The aims of the terrorist groups like al Qaeda are on the neck pin to see America destroyed. It America isolates itself it gives room for the terrorist's freedom to develop, grow and expand and after that plan attacks and destroy the US. When the US, the world superpower has affected the rest of the nations especially the developing country will also be affected.

References

Bacevich, A. J. (2013). The new American Militarism: How Americans are seduced by war. Oxford University Press.

Griswold, D., Stefan, K., Stassen, H., Drummond, R., Bushfield, H., Meyer, E., ... & Allen, E. (2015). Article Title: Isolationism versus Internationalism? The Republican Senatorial Primary in Nebraska, 1946 Full Citation: Justus F Paul,"Isolationism versus Internationalism? The Republican Senatorial Primary in Nebraska, 1946," Nebraska History 56 (1975): 145-156.

Lewis, A. (2014). The American culture of war: A history of US military force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom (2nd ed.). London: Routledge

Spykman, N. J. (2017). America's strategy in world politics: the United States and the balance of power. Routledge.