Group 4

12/08/2017

Week 13

Group Submission

Question 1: George Washington encouraged the new nation to steer clear of

permanent alliances. What are the positive aspects of this type of isolationism? How
does the Monroe Doctrine fit into this foreign policy?

Response #1:
George Washington encouraged the new nation to "steer clear of permanent alliances"
because he basically believed that long-term alliances could drag the United States
into wars. Avoiding allies means we avoid being involved in any future wars that have
nothing to do with us.He said "Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and
excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only one
side..." This would be a positive aspect to be isolated in this way. We wouldn't get
dragged into a war with a country just because one of our "long-term allies" does.

The Monroe Doctrine fits into foreign policy because of this address from George
Washington about the new nation, it paved the way for the Monroe Doctrine to have
precedence. The doctrine states that the United States would say out of European
aairs and vice versa. It was an implementation of the George Washington address to
"steer clear of permanent alliances".The doctrine itself was an attempt to avoid
involvement with European political struggles and followed the lines of staying away
from alliances.

Question 2: Explain why there was a shift away from isolation and neutrality to
intervention in the twentieth century. How did world events prompt changes in foreign
policy? Pretend you are a 20th century politician and argue for the benefits of a less
isolated United States not the world stage.
Response #2:
The change between isolation to neutrality to intervention took place rapidly. World War
I was the biggest factor in Americas change to isolation. Before the war America
wanted to stay out of foreign dilemmas completely but then we saw the opportunity to
grow our economy and make great profits. We began to produce goods and raw
materials to sell in Europe. Our involvement changed us to a neutralist nation. Our
natural standing allowed us to sell to both sides and have a larger market. The problem
was that neither side wanted the enemy to receive goods. England began to blockade
our shipments headed to Germany. In return Germans sank ships headed to England.
This started to become a loss for America and we needed to pick a side and chose to
pick the one that had not killed our men. Plus if they won, they could pay us back. As
the Worlds greatest super power, America heard about what was happening there
and decided to intervene. Plus Germans had sunk some of our supply ships, so things
got personal. President Eisenhower said that America was one of the strongest, most
influential, and productive nations in the world. Our reputation relied on how we used
our powers. We demonstrated an interest in world peace and human betterment when
we got involved with World War I. Our goal has be to foster progress in human
achievement and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among all people and
nations.

Another reason was that President Woodrow Wilson encouraged people to remain
impartial in thought and action. He kept America out of the war in an attempt to
negotiate peace. Later he decided to enter into the war was because he felt that it
would "make the world safe for democracy". He wanted to protect international
interests and have an influence on what the world looked like after the war. For these
reasons, he decided our military would have to participate. Shortly after Pearl Harbor
was bombed and it sparked World War II. The action removed all of the neutrality of the
US. So when America got involved we were fighting for a specific side, not just to end
the war.

Pretending to be 20th Century Politicians:

We would argue on the side that the world needs a leader and the only way that the
United States can become THE leader is if the nation does get involved and we do
develop allies but maybe just temporary ones so that we still don't get pulled into wars
or conflicts that we want nothing to do with.Less isolated foreign policy opens the
United States to access raw materials, food, goods, etc. It also always us to exchange
ideas and thoughts with other countries. This allows us to help our country and others
to learn and grow. Ending isolation puts us in a position to influence the world to be a
better place. It allows other economies to become more stable and opens up new
opportunities for us to grow our own economy. This would help us remain the most
powerful nation economically and socially.

Question 3: Scan newspaper or magazine headlines, and choose a foreign policy

controversy of today that involves the United States. What issues do you see involved-
nationalism, a sense of mission, isolationism, interventionism? How does the past
foreign policy of the United States regarding this country inform the current action?
What solutions to you suggest?

Response #3:
We found a few examples from the news.

1. Trumps Jerusalem decision promises upheaval analysis by Stephen Collins,

CNN, December 6, 2017
Foreign policy has stayed more neutral in the past. Trump announced that in his
opinion, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocated the
embassy there. This decision is bold and could hold some high risks. This is
interventionism. One solution we came up with was that President could try to
retract his statement and hope the Palestinians are not too upset. Although, this is
guaranteed not going to happen, so we will see what is in store.

2. Trump-Mexico Relations, Politico Magazine

 This article talks about the sentiments of Mexican nationals in regards to the
way our current President Trump treats them. "Trump's wall" and talk of keeping
Mexicans in Mexico is isolationism. The strange side of this is that the Monroe Doctrine
basically states that it is our mission to protect our neighbors on the American
continents, yet many Americans focus solely on self-preservation. Mexico has a long
standing distrust of the United Stated that reaches back to the mid 1800's with the
Mexican-American War. Many Mexican nationals still see Americans as the people who
stole half of their country. Though these feelings of distrust had been dormant for many
years because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which. It
strengthened our relationship through trade. Now many of those same negative
sentiments are being brought back.

Our nation has not fond of isolation for a long time and it may not be a good
course of action to start now. Although, if we were to become isolationists it would be
wiser to start isolating ourselves from nations further away from the US. Especially
ones that do not have as much of a direct impact on our economy and our society. As
a nation that has been on world police lookout for so many years we should first try to
forge strong positive relationships with the nations closest to us instead of trying to cut
ourselves o from their influence.

3. Donald Trumps menacing talk on North Korea is leaving the US isolated By Simon
Tisdall, The Guardian, November 30, 2017

The issue is isolationism and interventionism. This news story covers President
Trump's threat to destroy North Korean Regime. It made Russia angry and therefore
they are responding with a sort of interventionism. However, Trump's talk of war has
made us more isolated. Trumps actions look like he is trying to spark a reaction,
maybe a little interventionist, but definitely making us more isolated.

The past foreign policy for the US and many other countries has been to simply
just "stay out of it. This is definitely not going on here. It seems that Trump is trying to
get involved in everything, taking more of a interventionism approach. Our solution, is
to be careful, but Trumps intervention style appears to be working for the time being.