BAD: ISOLATIONISM IN FOREIGN POLICY

During much of the time prior to the 20th and 21st centuries, Foreign Policy was a way for this nation to control other nations; to exploit and diminish any sense of individualism that another country could have. However, at the turn of the century with the Industrial Revolution at its zenith, the world was quickly becoming the world we know today. A world where the economies, societies, and social-aspects of any given country are connected in a myriad of ways to any other given country, in short, a world with full-scale globalization. In this world, America has watched as its Foreign Policy has transformed into a tool which is no longer chiefly about controlling other nations, but a much needed tool in order to keep this nation safe, economically sound, and progressive. Thus in a world where the people are becoming more and more unified in economic and social provisions, America cannot implement the doctrine of Isolationism into its Foreign Policy. There are three chief and distinct reasons why America’s best interests are to stay connected to the world beyond its borders. First there is the safety of our nation, second there is the firmness of our economy, and third is this nation’s progress as a world leader.
In a theory proposed in 1943, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, safety is the fundamental necessitate, without safety one is unable to advance in any way, shape or form into a more profound individual. This theory, dictates that without safety, one essentially is nothing. Though Maslow intended this theory for people, we can apply this very same ideology to countries. If a country is not safe, how can it attempt to fix any of its internal problems, how can a country progress and how can a country shift its focus onto bigger entities? The answers are simple, if a country is not safe that country can do nothing, it essentially is nothing.

In the decade that came after the end of the Cold War and before the terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States military cut back and reduced its massive nuclear stockpile. The American Government and a large bulk of American People, believed that there were no overarching threats against this nation. As a result, American leaders were slow to put together new and innovative military strategies for much of the post-Cold War era. Nevertheless, the morning of September 11th, 2001 was not only the first foreign attack on American soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, but also those unfortunate attacks served as a reminder to U.S. leaders of the new and urgent threat to its national security. An isolationist-driven foreign policy is not capable of protecting America against any its potential threats today and definitely not in a future where technologies for Weapons of Mass Destruction are quickly advancing. Simply because of the fact that according to the definition provided by the debate moderator, in an isolationist foreign policy, a country isolates itself “from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”; meaning, that a country is unable to maintain its understanding and awareness of the status of other nations, because it focuses its attention solely on itself. And while there are a number of domestic problems which America needs to try and resolve such as: education, immigration reform, health care, et cetera. Without American leaders, and the American people truly being secure, these domestic problems will be far from handled. Also, the terrorist and hostile nations which are blamed for the September 11th, 2001 attacks are nations infamous for not playing by any rules and can strike again without warning. Unless, however, America preserves and sustains a Foreign Policy which is capable of keeping our leaders, and us cognizant about all nations, and also a foreign policy which keeps America active in those nations. In the definition I read aloud earlier, in an isolationist doctrine, a country declines to enter into alliances with other nations. One of the main reasons why America was not, and has not been, attacked by nuclear hostilities after World War II was because of an alliance which the United States helped create and lead; The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance meant to defend its 26 members from any form of aggression from nations which are known to have nuclear weapons. In an Isolationist driven-Foreign Policy, this treaty would have never existed, and thus who knows if the 1945 nuclear bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would today remain the only nuclear assaults in history.
Aside from the safety of our nation, America’s foreign policy has a lot do with how our economy will function. Trading goods and services with other nations is a crucial part of the U.S. economy. The number of businesses that export American goods to other nations, habitually provide good and solid salaries, and the growth of these businesses abroad brings money into the United States. Additionally, the inexpensive foreign imports provide American consumers with better choices by allowing them to get more for their money. In a foreign policy which indoctrinates isolationism, foreign trade does not occur. Thus, businesses of that certain nation are unable to expand their companies and industries into the world, and the potential for jobs inside that country is highly weakened. On the other hand, a country which opens up its economy to the world is not only receiving economic benefits, but also trade and economic integration has allowed America to break down barriers with other nations in terms of cultural and social provisions.

Moreover, though isolationism would, and probably does make sense to other nations, we must not forget who America is. America is not a nation like any European nation, or those like China where there is a distinct feature to its people- physically and culturally. America is commonly referred to as the melting pot of the world, where all sorts of cultures, societies, peoples, and languages come together to make it the great nation that truly is. Unfortunately, implementing isolationist-thinking into this nation’s Foreign Policy could harm the U.S. in the short term and the long term. For if America suddenly decided to stop all form of functioning with other nations, Americans would thus have less opportunities to learn from and cooperate with other nations.
All in all, indoctrinating isolationism into our Foreign Policy simply does not make sense on an economic, social, or safety-concerned level. A Foreign Policy which allows the U.S. to be an active and strong leader in the world is more about maintaining and upholding the American way of life. Therefore, the question is not whether or not to be an active nation, but how can America elevate its world standing and continue to become a more effective and profound world leader, active and leading in every and any foreign allegiance, economic commitment, and world policy. For these reasons, America simply must not implement any form of isolationist influence in its foreign policy.


I was debating the con side for the following prompt: Resolved that the United States should implement isolationism into its foreign policy.