A good question and one with multiple answers.
The US was, prior to World War One, very much an isolationist country meaning it would keep out of European wars as far as possible. This policy had its origins in the 19th century and in 1812 the US and UK fought a war on US soil, not European. This policy was compounded
somewhat by the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ of 1823 when President James Monroe stated:
The USA will not allow interference in any country of the American continent by any European power, and that any such involvement will be regarded as a danger to the peace and security of the USA itself.
As can be seen such a conflict would not be fought on European shores but any of those threatened - if any - the lands of American countries from Argentina to Canada. In many ways this ‘doctrine’ copper fastened US isolationism from any European conflict as was the case in the Napoleonic wars which were fought from 1799-1815. There are those who suggest, with limited justification, that the 1812 war was an extension of the Napoleonic Wars while other dismiss these claims as the war was fought not in Europe but the USA. No US troops fought in Europe either at Waterloo or elsewhere and the United States played no part in the 1815 ‘Concert of Europe’ or perhaps better known as the ‘Vienna Settlement’ resulting in the demise of Napoleon Bonaparte. The 1898 war between the US and Spain was fought on South American shores under the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ as Spain tried to impose its will and reclaim her empire, placing the King of Spain as head.
This form of isolationism continued and became more clearly defined in the early 20th century up until the outbreak of World War One. Britain needed the United States in on her side as Kaiser ‘Bill’s’ army proved a more capable fighting force than the British anticipated. There would be no ‘spending Christmas in Berlin 1914’ and the best achieved by the men themselves on both sides (many not really wanting to fight at all) was a cordial game of football and an unofficial ceasefire. The USA refused categorically to become involved in the European slaughter and retrenched into isolationism.
This form of isolationism continued and became more clearly defined in the early 20th century up until the outbreak of World War One. Britain needed the United States in on her side as Kaiser ‘Bill’s’ army proved a more capable fighting force than the British anticipated. There would be no ‘spending Christmas in Berlin 1914’ and the best achieved by the men themselves on both sides (many not really wanting to fight at all) was a cordial game of football and an unofficial ceasefire. The USA refused categorically to become involved in the European slaughter and retrenched into isolationism.
As the war progressed and the British and French took a few hidings from the foe Britian became more desperate to have the US on side. Even the sinking by a German U Boat in 1915 of the Lusitania killing many American passengers was not enough for the US to break with isolationism. However, on 17th January 1917, a secret diplomatic communication issued from the German Foreign Office was intercepted by the desperate British and some said it was actually written by the British to force the US to the battlefield. The telegraph proposed ‘a military contract between the German Empire and Mexico if the United States entered the war against Germany. With Germany’s aid Mexico would recover Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.’ The contents enraged the USA and its peoples. And when the German State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Arthur Zimmerman, foolishly publicly admitted the telegram was genuine on 3rd March 1917 it was sufficient to push the USA into the conflict.
The First World War ended with an armistice on the stroke of 11am on the 11th November, the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, 1918. Germany never really accepted defeat but they laid down their arms and were humiliated, particularly by the French, at the Treaty of Versailles signed on 28th June 1919, coming into effect 10th January 1920. At this point President Woodrow Wilson and continued by his successor, Warren G. Harding, retreated back into a policy of isolationism for the USA.
This would be how it remained until the Second World War erupted and Britain once again found herself needing the US involvement against Nazi Germany. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt having been re-elected on a policy of; “our boys will not fight in foreign wars” refused to send US troops to fight on European soil. On 7th December 1941 US isolationism was shattered when the Japanese, an ally of Nazi Germany, launched an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour. Despite US efforts to remain neutral, although with sympathetic leanings towards Britain during the war, this forced Roosevelt’s hand. He couldn’t stay out of the conflict, now a world war, any longer.
This would be how it remained until the Second World War erupted and Britain once again found herself needing the US involvement against Nazi Germany. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt having been re-elected on a policy of; “our boys will not fight in foreign wars” refused to send US troops to fight on European soil. On 7th December 1941 US isolationism was shattered when the Japanese, an ally of Nazi Germany, launched an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour. Despite US efforts to remain neutral, although with sympathetic leanings towards Britain during the war, this forced Roosevelt’s hand. He couldn’t stay out of the conflict, now a world war, any longer.
There are those who believed Winston Churchill had knowledge of Japan’s intentions but, in order to force Roosevelt’s hand, kept the information from the US President. Like the Zimerman letter of the First World War this is purely supposition with no real evidence to support such claims which were not beyond the bounds of possibilities. When the Axis forces were defeated, the US found themselves in a dominant world position both politically and militarily. The two Superpowers, as they became known, the USA and USSR, embarked on an arms race known as the ‘Cold War’, and in 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was formed primarily by the United States. In 1955 the Soviet Union and her allies formed the ‘Warsaw Pact’ in retaliation. Isolationism was no longer a prospect or option for the US. This situation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and with it the end of the Warsaw Pact. NATO was and is still maintained, drawing in more and more member states against Russia, the largest of the former fifteen states of the USSR. Russia remains the world’s largest single nuclear power by a distance.
In 2016 under the strange electoral college rules Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States. He took up office on 20th January 2017 and left office, reluctantly, on 20th January 2021. Trump's election motto was, and is, ‘America First’, and he has shown support for far-right parties around the globe including the fascist ‘Britain First’ who reportedly have links to ‘Ulster’ loyalists. He indicted in his first term his contempt for countries who did “not pay their way towards NATO”. This cavalier nutter of a President has also indicated his tepid support for the Atlantic Treaty and even, if others don’t come up to the mark in contributions, to pull out of NATO.
In 2016 under the strange electoral college rules Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States. He took up office on 20th January 2017 and left office, reluctantly, on 20th January 2021. Trump's election motto was, and is, ‘America First’, and he has shown support for far-right parties around the globe including the fascist ‘Britain First’ who reportedly have links to ‘Ulster’ loyalists. He indicted in his first term his contempt for countries who did “not pay their way towards NATO”. This cavalier nutter of a President has also indicated his tepid support for the Atlantic Treaty and even, if others don’t come up to the mark in contributions, to pull out of NATO.
The alliance without the US amounts to nothing really as it is the USA who provide the heavy firepower. The question is; could Trump, re-elected in 2024, be heading towards a new isolationism? Or, on the other hand, dominating Europe militarily from the White House? On 20th January 2025 Donald Trump began his second tenure as President of the United States. He appears more aggressive than Trump mark one who may have been just testing the waters. Trump mark two is now a convicted felon and may be awaiting trial for other offences. The question is, can a US incumbent President be prosecuted? Well, yes, he can, but it is not easy or straight forward. Like his mate in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the butcher of Gaza, who is also waiting charges against him but is alright as long as he is Prime Minister of Israel, Trump is safe enough while he is in the White House.
Once again, this President is making noises about others financial contribution to NATO. By making these threats about effectively dismantling NATO he can dictate how much of a member state's GDP is spent on defence therefore neglecting other goods and services like health and housing! He is also making aggressive noises in the ways of tariffs against Mexico and Canada both hitherto friendly countries. He is also making the same aggressive tones towards China who are a different prospect and a nuclear power.
It is unlikely the USA under President Trump will head back into isolationism, at least not in its traditional sense. What is apparent is the US are changing their allegiance’s possibly away from Europe and NATO to a point and more towards Rusia in pursuit of the mineral deposits beneath the soil of Ukraine! This analysis may in the long term be proved not to be the case but present evidence, like the humiliating of Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, suggests this could be the new direction of US foreign policy. As opposed to old style US isolationism perhaps a new kind of US imperialism is the more likely? Only time will tell. Whatever the outcome the present policies of this President are not healthy for the rest of us.
It is unlikely the USA under President Trump will head back into isolationism, at least not in its traditional sense. What is apparent is the US are changing their allegiance’s possibly away from Europe and NATO to a point and more towards Rusia in pursuit of the mineral deposits beneath the soil of Ukraine! This analysis may in the long term be proved not to be the case but present evidence, like the humiliating of Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, suggests this could be the new direction of US foreign policy. As opposed to old style US isolationism perhaps a new kind of US imperialism is the more likely? Only time will tell. Whatever the outcome the present policies of this President are not healthy for the rest of us.
Finally, one point of observation: the public humiliation of President Zelenskyy was televised around the globe, while President Trump's meeting with British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was not. Why could this have been? Further evidence the showing up of the Ukrainian leader was pre-planned and a further indication of the sort of man Trump is.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Domestically, the terms "Isolationism" and "Isolationist" have long been used perjoratively by those who advocate for U.S. foreign interventions, grand and small, since the belated entry into WWI to the present day.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing inherently demeaning in the words, and they should be claimed with pride, similar to the way in which "Fenian" or "Fenian Bastard" are.
There are many good reasons for the United States not to meddle in other country's affairs, too numerous to mention here.
If one toured throughout the United States, one would corresponding find conditions, also too numerous to mention, where the billions, trillions,spent abroad on military misadventures and genocides could have otherwise been put to very good use.
Advocating for this inward redirection does not necessarily indicate that one is aligned with fascist elements. It just makes for good common sense.
For an excellent read on an especially sordid part of American history, where interventionists succeeeded in taking over the country, "American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis", by Adam Hochschild, is highly recommended.
None of this subject matter was on the school syllabus when I was growing up, and wasn't taught in my children's schools either.
A lot of that money came from raiding the lands in which the US invaded, and the corresponding wealth went to pay their own Military-Industrial complex to keep producing the hardware and munitions. Question is, how much money would they REALLY have if they were not imperialistic? The book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins is very illuminating on the 'soft' coercion also applied in this vain.
DeleteTo be truly isolationist would also mean forgive debt servitude in Latin America and that will never happen. I'd argue that instead of becoming isolationist they are now dispensing with the clothes of liberal western Democracy and moving into expansionist dictatorship. Just look at Ukraine, they ignored Ukraine and Europe and had a meeting with the Dictator Putin to carve up assets in Ukraine! The gall! I have little doubt they'll take Greenland, tell China to do what they want with Taiwan and pull troops from South Korea.
Since the end of WWII the USA have done nothing but interfere in other countries affairs, Vietnam, Iraq, indirectly they forced Britain and Israel to 'get east of Suez' in 1956. Iraq is more recent and a sure indication there is no way the US can retreat into isolationism. today under the Trump Presidency they are meddling in E aster Europe and their target is the mineral wealth in the Ukraine. these are only a few examples of US interference or, depending on your view point, intervention in other countries affairs. Remember Grenada?
ReplyDeleteYou are right enough, Sean, none of this subject matter was, or is, on the school syllabus. I covered US Politics as part of International Politics, including the Politics of the EU at the time, back in the nineties, as part of my politics degree. The world has changed which is why it is important to keep abreast of the subject.
Caoimhin O'Muraile