How has America's foreign policy changed - Essay Example

10.02 World War I The United s’ decision to intervene in World War I, one which was strongly opposed by some in Congress, marked a significant departure from earlier foreign policy strategies. The United States had, throughout much of the nineteenth century and right until World War I, adhered to a non-interventionist foreign policy. This meant that the United States did not intervene in the affairs of other nations, even in times of full-scale conflict. Indeed, as historical sources suggest, the United States’ determination not to intervene in the affairs of other nations led to popular descriptions of its foreign affairs policy as an isolationist one.

That is a foreign policy which determinedly aims towards the isolation of a country’s national and international interests from world events. It is, to a large extent, an unrealistic foreign policy insofar as it ignores the extent to which national interests are ultimately intermingled with both international ones and those of other nations. World War I, according to this interpretation, exposed the extent to which the United States’ foreign policy had oversimplified the extent to which national interests, largely economic ones, were predicated on the well-being and stability of other nations, specifically the European ones.

Realization of the aforementioned, therefore, forced the United States, largely out of concern for its own national interests and welfare, to break with its non-interventionist foreign policy and embrace a more interventionist one in which the US engaged in the affairs of other nations for the promotion and protection of its own interests.10.03 VersaillesThe United States refusal to sign the Versailles Treaty was consistent with its pre-World War I foreign policy. Quite simply stated, prior to World War I, the United States had pursued a non interventionist foreign policy and had, upon the outbreak and prolongation of the aforementioned event, only temporarily broken with that policy.

It broke with it in order to restore stability to Europe and, by association, the United States’ economic interests in the continent. As is evident from Wilson’s Fourteen Points, the United States had assumed that following the conclusion of World War I and the subsequent restoration of stability to Europe, it would be able to revert to its earlier foreign policy strategy. Accordingly, the very last thing that it wanted was another European war. The terms of the Versailles Treaty, however, appeared to threaten just that.

Certainly, it should have included limitations on Germany’s arming itself or having a standing army for some time, as was the case with World War II peace agreements, but it should not have included reparation terms as which effectively ensured the economic ruination of Germany. The United States refused, within the context of the stated, to ratify the treaty because it interpreted it as a recipe for continued conflict and not one for peace and the restoration of US-European economic relations and ties.

The United States was opposed to the treaty because it hardly allowed for the stability requisite for reversion to a policy f non-intervention and, following involvement in the Great War, this is precisely what the United States and its citizens wanted. Accordingly, the United States’ refusal to sign the Versailles Treaty did not mark a break with the its customary approach to dealing with other nations but a determination to perverse its pre-World War I strategy for international dealings and a refusal to get involved in a treaty which, from its perspective, was likely to ignite another conflict into which the United States could get dragged.10.04 World War IIWhile the United States’ entry into World War I was indicative of a remarkable break with prior foreign policy, its decision to engage in World War II, was not.

Ever since its involvement in World War I, the United States was never really able to revert to its pre-World War I isolationist foreign policy and, indeed, was gradually being drawn into international affairs, becoming more and more engaged in the pursuit of an anti-imperialist foreign policy. Certainly, upon the outbreak of World War II, the United States initially refused to get involved and, were it not for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States’ entry into the war may have been even further delayed.

The implication here is that the United States exhibited the same reluctance it did towards involvement that it had in relation to the Great War. This is despite the fact that its policy, while hardly interventionist, was definitely not as non-interventionist as it had been. Within the context of the stated, one can say that the United States’ involvement in World War II and the circumstances of its involvement can hardly be interpreted as evidencing a break with earlier foreign policy.The United States’ actions following involvement in World War II and in its immediate aftermath, on the other hand, represent precisely such a break.

The decision to end the war through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki betray the embrace of a more aggressive and decisive foreign policy. Added to that, the United States’ deep involvement in post-war Europe and Japan and its confrontations with communist USSR over the future of Germany a more ideologically informed foreign policy which is prepared to engage in nation-building for the purposes of universalizing its capitalist/liberal and democratic ideologies. In other words, while the entry into World War II does not evidence a shift in foreign policy, actions during the war and in its immediate aftermath, do.10.05 Nuremberg TrialsThe Nuremberg Military Tribunals, a series of twelve US trials of captured German war criminal suspects, solidified the United States’ status as a vital international player.

It further testified to the United States’ acceptance of its role as a superpower and the associate responsibilities of this status. Support for the United States’ involvement, however, did not stem from the aforementioned as much as it did from the nature of the crimes which were being tried. Quite simply stated, the Nuremberg military Tribunals dealt with crimes of war which had been perpetuated against U.S. troops by German soldiers and against those who had been liberated from German concentration camps.

In other words, U.S. involvement in the trials did not simply stem from the seminal role which it had played in the war but because of its direct involvement in the crimes which were being tried.Support from American involvement in the Nuremberg trials was predicated on all of the above stated and was supported as a consequence of the above mentioned considerations. However, popular support for America’s involvement in the Nuremberg Trials was not limited to the stated but also extended to included that which the trials represented.

Quite simply stated, the Nuremberg Trials represented the Allies’ last stand against Nazi Germany and their final effort at dismantling Nazism. Given the role which the United States had played in the defeat of Germany and its undeniable status as a world superpower, it could hardly be isolated from final dealings with Nazi Germany. Added to that, the Nuremberg Trials had implications for both international law and their outcome would have definite effects on international relations. Support for the United States involvement, therefore, stemmed from the understanding that earlier isolationist foreign policy strategies could no longer be pursued, that the United States was a fundamental member of the international community and, as such, both had a responsibility and a right to determine the shape of that community and world order.

Support for the United States’ involvement in the Nuremberg Trials, as noted in the preceding paragraphs, stemmed from several considerations and cannot be pinned down to any single one.