I found this opinion piece in Newsweek, which made some interesting points: We Need the Monroe Doctrine
American policy from the time of Independence to 1941 has often been called "isolationist," although "isolated" is not an accurate term to describe the United States at any time during its history. Of course, in 1823, the U.S. was considerably weaker and more vulnerable compared to the European powers, so taking a non-aligned, neutral position would appear to be a wiser course of action for the time period. However, it was apparently also in Britain's interests to support the Monroe Doctrine for their own purposes. They wanted to trade with the newly independent republics of Latin America, and the idea of rival European powers going in to reclaim them as colonies would have hindered that.
In any case, the Monroe Doctrine stood, and Europe and America tended to leave each other alone, while the territories of the former Spanish Empire became independent, one by one, though not unified as a single nation. This allowed the U.S. to continue with its westward expansionist policies, while European countries imposed the Metternich System, though there was some political instability culminating in the Revolutions of 1848. 50 years later, the U.S. decided it was finally time to kick out the last remnants of the Spanish Empire, taking Cuba and Puerto Rico, but also getting Guam and the Philippines as spoils of victory.
The taking of the Philippines was probably a big mistake, and on the surface, it appears go against the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. However, the Monroe Doctrine was primarily concerned with the Americas, the Atlantic, and Europe. We didn't have an outlet to the Pacific at that point, so we approached the Pacific Rim and East Asia differently. The Monroe Doctrine stated "non-colonization and non-intervention," but we already broke that pledge with the occupation of the Philippines and our participation in a multinational intervention in China during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Once we started down that rabbit hole, America got more and more pulled in to global politics and the "foreign entanglements" we were once so desperate to avoid.
So, now, we're pretty much all over the place. Even the ending of the Cold War didn't really change that situation, as much of the world still has a great deal of impoverishment, political instability, long-term resentments over colonialism and post-colonial hegemony, and a host of other problems.
As for this article, I don't know much about the author, other than that she's the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
I don't agree with the author's contention that the U.S. should leave NATO, although I have seen this idea raised in the past. There are also those who say the U.S. should leave the U.N., and the U.N. should leave the U.S.
In my opinion, I don't think the problem really rests within our alliance system or diplomatic structure. There may very well be threats to global security and stability, and there are multiple countries with shared interests in preparing to meet those threats for mutual benefit. But there is a practical concern in that the U.S. can't really do it all by itself. We are strained economically and facing domestic political squabbles ourselves (and some of our political disputes revolve around the very foreign policy under discussion in this article).
I think another issue might be a certain level of arrogance which comes from America taking on the role of "leader of the free world" with a bit too much relish, where the natural role is that we get to call all the shots for the whole alliance. But in the process, it makes it seem as if we're shouldering the burdens of the world all by ourselves, which was never really true, but the fact is, we might have to step back from that role somewhat. We can still be part of the alliance, but we don't have to be the ones driving the train.
Ultimately, we'll have to find ways to deal with powers like Russia and China, since they're not going anyplace, and war with either of them would be unthinkable at this point.
In my opinion, I don't think we can maintain the status quo of the entire world indefinitely, so we might have to shift our priorities a bit. We need to have a policy which has more coherency and consistency, and we need to plan better, rather than simply react to things in a management-by-crisis style.
What do you think about the views expressed in this article? Should the US withdraw from NATO and other alliances? Would that be helpful to the US? Would it be helpful to other nations? Do other nations appreciate US involvement? Do our current policies generate a more positive attitude from the rest of the world, or does it generate more global resentment against America? Is our current foreign policy helpful or harmful to US economic interests and our overall standard of living in America? Does the free world continue to need America's leadership?
American policy from the time of Independence to 1941 has often been called "isolationist," although "isolated" is not an accurate term to describe the United States at any time during its history. Of course, in 1823, the U.S. was considerably weaker and more vulnerable compared to the European powers, so taking a non-aligned, neutral position would appear to be a wiser course of action for the time period. However, it was apparently also in Britain's interests to support the Monroe Doctrine for their own purposes. They wanted to trade with the newly independent republics of Latin America, and the idea of rival European powers going in to reclaim them as colonies would have hindered that.
In any case, the Monroe Doctrine stood, and Europe and America tended to leave each other alone, while the territories of the former Spanish Empire became independent, one by one, though not unified as a single nation. This allowed the U.S. to continue with its westward expansionist policies, while European countries imposed the Metternich System, though there was some political instability culminating in the Revolutions of 1848. 50 years later, the U.S. decided it was finally time to kick out the last remnants of the Spanish Empire, taking Cuba and Puerto Rico, but also getting Guam and the Philippines as spoils of victory.
The taking of the Philippines was probably a big mistake, and on the surface, it appears go against the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. However, the Monroe Doctrine was primarily concerned with the Americas, the Atlantic, and Europe. We didn't have an outlet to the Pacific at that point, so we approached the Pacific Rim and East Asia differently. The Monroe Doctrine stated "non-colonization and non-intervention," but we already broke that pledge with the occupation of the Philippines and our participation in a multinational intervention in China during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Once we started down that rabbit hole, America got more and more pulled in to global politics and the "foreign entanglements" we were once so desperate to avoid.
So, now, we're pretty much all over the place. Even the ending of the Cold War didn't really change that situation, as much of the world still has a great deal of impoverishment, political instability, long-term resentments over colonialism and post-colonial hegemony, and a host of other problems.
As for this article, I don't know much about the author, other than that she's the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
I don't agree with the author's contention that the U.S. should leave NATO, although I have seen this idea raised in the past. There are also those who say the U.S. should leave the U.N., and the U.N. should leave the U.S.
In my opinion, I don't think the problem really rests within our alliance system or diplomatic structure. There may very well be threats to global security and stability, and there are multiple countries with shared interests in preparing to meet those threats for mutual benefit. But there is a practical concern in that the U.S. can't really do it all by itself. We are strained economically and facing domestic political squabbles ourselves (and some of our political disputes revolve around the very foreign policy under discussion in this article).
I think another issue might be a certain level of arrogance which comes from America taking on the role of "leader of the free world" with a bit too much relish, where the natural role is that we get to call all the shots for the whole alliance. But in the process, it makes it seem as if we're shouldering the burdens of the world all by ourselves, which was never really true, but the fact is, we might have to step back from that role somewhat. We can still be part of the alliance, but we don't have to be the ones driving the train.
Ultimately, we'll have to find ways to deal with powers like Russia and China, since they're not going anyplace, and war with either of them would be unthinkable at this point.
In my opinion, I don't think we can maintain the status quo of the entire world indefinitely, so we might have to shift our priorities a bit. We need to have a policy which has more coherency and consistency, and we need to plan better, rather than simply react to things in a management-by-crisis style.
What do you think about the views expressed in this article? Should the US withdraw from NATO and other alliances? Would that be helpful to the US? Would it be helpful to other nations? Do other nations appreciate US involvement? Do our current policies generate a more positive attitude from the rest of the world, or does it generate more global resentment against America? Is our current foreign policy helpful or harmful to US economic interests and our overall standard of living in America? Does the free world continue to need America's leadership?
