By: David Epega
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023
The United The United States has never employed a universal standard regarding foreign policy. It has shifted between ideologies with an isolationist mentality prioritizing domestic issues and more proactive mindsets such as 20th-century “Wilsonism”.
These shifts in ideologies have not only impacted the outcomes and philosophies of the United States itself but have also defined entire generations of people across the globe. The importance of United States foreign policy has increased since the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, where the United States would find itself as the undisputed global superpower. The impact of this can be seen in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, where the actions of the United States after the September 11th Attacks completely altered the trajectory of the Middle East, and the ramifications of the conflict are still felt today. On the alternative, many historians believe that without President Woodrow Wilson’s unique perspective on international affairs and his “peace without victory” mentality, the United States would have entered World War I earlier under different leadership bringing a quicker end to the war. Ramifications like these are endless throughout American history, and what allowed for these decisions to be made was the rule of law at the time. For a more accurate depiction of history and to better inform the future, understanding how laws impacted the U.S. foreign policy and vice versa is vital. For this analysis, the United States’ history will be separated into five distinct periods, so we can properly evaluate the shifts in ideology and the laws within each period. The four periods will be the Isolationist Era, the Globalization Era, the Cold War Era, and the Modern Era. These eras make up the majority of the major events the United States has been involved with and will allow for an understandable analysis of the legal standard of the time.
The Isolationist Era
The Isolationist Era occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries, easily the longest of any era defined before. The ideology regarding foreign policy is defined in the era’s name. Isolationism would be followed throughout this period, disparaging involvement with the dealings of other countries to avoid unnecessary wars and unwise treaties. To begin deciphering the impact laws had on these American international ideologies, the Constitution is a strong place to start. Article II of the United States Constitution grants foreign policy powers to the executive branch, stating “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” [1]. The Constitution, a far more centralized document than its predecessor the Articles of Confederation, signifies the first laws established involving foreign affairs. With the power in the president’s hands, it allowed for the president to establish a precedent regarding foreign affairs. The nation’s first president George Washington, while not creating isolationism, would set the stage for this period. In his 1796 Farewell Address, he would state “In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated” [2]. While not being direct laws, his beliefs along with the president’s legal rights to influence foreign policy would directly influence the American philosophy behind prioritizing independence from other nations, believing that the president’s words were a form of law because of their power to impact foreign dealings.
Leading into the 19th century after Washington’s terms, the Federalist and Democratic-Republican Party would bicker relentlessly over relations between Britain and France. No laws would be passed or enacted as such, but it is important to note that despite this contested time between the two parties, neither fully pushed to involve themselves in foreign conflicts because of Washingtin’s words, thereby highlighting the impact of the combination of the Constitution's legal jurisdiction along with the president's sentiments. The War of 1812 would be the first major event since the Revolutionary War involving foreign powers, and the war would end solidifying this independent mindset from Europe, as a second conflict involving Britain and France in forty years was a telltale sign of things to come if the United States was more involved in European squabbles. Washington’s early views would be expanded upon by President James Monroe and his staple Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine would be contained in his seventh annual message to Congress in 1983, where he would state “The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are ... not to be considered ... subjects for future colonization by any European powers'' [3]. He would also claim that “In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so”. Monroe’s doctrine in summary suggests the U.S. would not be involved in the affairs of European powers, the U.S. would refrain from tampering with other colonies in the Western Hemisphere, the West was closed to European colonization, and any European meddling in the affairs of any western nation would be taken as an act of hostility against the United States.
The Monroe Doctrine would be integral in the development of American foreign ideology for not only the rest of the 19th century but the beginning of the 20th century as well. The policy would become the first established by a president to carry out their will and cemented isolationism while adding a key ingredient to foreign affairs. It placed a caveat regarding neutrality, as the United States was now involved with the matters of other Western Hemisphere nations. Again, it cannot be understated how important the Monroe Doctrine is when considering the development of foreign policy in the United States. It would truly establish the 19th century as an isolationist period, but it would also plant the seeds for future American leadership to view its Western neighbors as part of its “sphere of influence”. This would be the first building block to larger international ideas. It should be noted as well that during the Civil War, there was an emphasis by the Union to avoid European involvement. While much of this was fueled by attempting to handicap the Confederacy who desperately; needed French and British support, much of it also involved maintaining the key ideas of the Monroe Doctrine to dissuade European influence in the West. “The Confederate States desperately sought official recognition by foreign countries, international trade, and military aid and alliances, especially with Great Britain and France.
Conversely, it was a high priority for the United States of America to prevent the Confederacy from achieving these objectives. Accordingly, from the start of the war, Abraham Lincoln ordered a naval blockade to interdict all maritime trade to southern ports despite pre-existing treaties of amity and commerce with, and the specter of military action against, neutral foreign countries; and the State Department lobbied the European powers to deny recognition of the Confederate States. These positions were notable departures from the general trend of U.S. foreign policy since the founding. The United States had traditionally championed neutrality” [4]. This would establish another precedent that the United States was willing to violate its neutral stance if the country deems a situation threatening to its interests. A sentiment that would be repeated during the world wars. As the 19th century progressed, and as Manifest Destiny became the forefront idea in the United States, the nation would eventually have the economic and military ability to not only enforce the Monroe Doctrine but begin to dabble in more modern ideas of international policy by the turn of the 20th century. This leads us to our next era, where the emerging power that is the United States makes its grand debut on the global stage. In summation, the Isolationist Era saw the power to impact foreign policy placed in the hands of the president legally by the Constitution, which empowered the following presidents to influence ideology with their beliefs and establish policies that would impact how the country approached foreign disputes.
The Globalization Era
The Globalization Era spans the turn from the beginning of the 20th century to the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations. As in its name, this period is reflected in the world beginning to connect after centuries of disconnected interactions and conflicts. Now nations have formed a plethora of alliances in the age of increased nationalism, and technological advancements allowed for easier communication between nations. Entering the 20th century, the United States was an emerging superpower still set in its neutral isolationist ways.
power still set in its neutral isolationist ways. That would begin to change with the election of President Theodore Roosevelt and the implementation of his “Roosevelt Corollary”. After the Venezuelan Crisis, where the U.S. was unable to aid Venezuela during a naval blockade by European powers because of the limitations of the Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt updated the doctrine to allow the U.S. to have the authority to intervene in the affairs of Latin American countries to root out European influence. Roosevelt would state the U.S. could “exercise international police power in ‘flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence”. The Roosevelt Corollary would have dramatic impacts on the future of the United States because it would open the floodgates for “justified” American intervention in several international issues. While established with good intentions by President Roosevelt, the doctrine would soon be used to excuse U.S. involvement in other nations. As stated by the Office of the Historian, “Over the long term the corollary had little to do with relations between the Western Hemisphere and Europe, but it did serve as justification for U.S. intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic” [5]. This later use of the Roosevelt Corollary had incredibly negative effects, all headlined by President Woodrow Wilson.
The impact Woodrow Wilson and his Wilsonism had on the future of the United States may be greater than any other president or law before or after him. Academic Walter Russell Mead would claim “Fashionable though it has long been to scorn the Treaty of Versailles, and flawed though that instrument undoubtedly was, one must note that Wilson's principles survived the eclipse of the Versailles system and that they still guide European politics today: self-determination, democratic government, collective security, international law, and a league of nations. Wilson may not have gotten everything he wanted at Versailles, and his treaty was never ratified by the Senate. Still, his vision and his diplomacy, for better or worse, set the tone for the twentieth century. France, Germany, Italy, and Britain may have sneered at Wilson, but every one of these powers today conducts its European policy along Wilsonian lines. What was once dismissed as visionary is now accepted as fundamental. This was no mean achievement, and no European statesman of the twentieth century has had as lasting, as benign, or as widespread an influence” [6]. Woodrow Wilson came to view the United States as the “City upon a Hill”, a virtuous land blessed by God, whose ideals should shape all nations around the world. He saw the Europeans’ bickering and wars beneath the United States, an ideology that would later directly influence his reluctance to enter World War I. Wilson would take President Roosevelt’s edits to the Monroe Doctrine and utilize them to push his agendas in the West forward. Wilson would employ “moral imperialism”, and enter Latin America during his presidency more than any president before or after. His moral imperialism was built around the idea of dismantling the old imperial order to help the “less developed” Latin nations establish democracies of their own, another sentiment that would prove disastrous in the future.
The dangers of the expanded policies started by Roosevelt began to show with Wilson, as his Wilsonism would employ new tactics increasing the range of American influence while maintaining a staunch view of entering European wars. Upon his dealing in Latin America, he would also impose “missionary diplomacy”, where the United States would deny recognition of any Latin American country that was not democratic. Slowly but surely, expanded policy in the name of protecting U.S. interests when it comes to foreign involvement begins to impact nearby nations. Within the country itself, American sentiment toward acting as the Western “big brother” to the Latin American countries was supported. The transformations to the original isolationist Monroe Doctrine by President Roosevelt and Wilson would set the stage for a new ideology dominating America. While the U.S. would still prefer to remain neutral in European affairs, the nation has the right to protect its interests against other powers.
As World War I commenced, Woodrow Wilson was adamant that the U.S. would remain uninvolved in the conflict. Despite the pleas from Britain and France, Wilson believed such a war went against the principles of America. Wilson had the dream that the United States would play mediator to end the war and shine as a great nation above petty squabbles that would become the beacon of peace in a free world. Wilson would say “Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble; we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be rebuilt” [7]. This flat-out rejection of the idea of neutrality by President Wilson is the telltale sign of a new era. The policies enacted by the 20th-century presidents to expand upon the 19th-century ideas have transformed into a new foreign policy. Wilson would continue to ensure the United States would be removed from the war despite the ongoing carnage taking place in Europe, and funny enough it would be the former president Theodore Roosevelt who was outraged by Wilson’s stance. Roosevelt would call Wilson a coward and believed the United States should have entered the war as early as 1915 to present the United States as a true superpower. Wilson’s desire to remain out of the war would become far more difficult after the loss of American lives due to German ships and the discovery of the Zimmerman Telegram. Even with this, Wilson would be incredibly reluctant to enter the war. He would however change his tune by altering his views regarding warfare. He still believed the U.S. would maintain its virtue because they weren’t fighting for petty reasons like the Europeans were. He claimed they entered the war “to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy” [8]. The U.S. would help bring an end to the Great War, but the next major impact policy had on international affairs.
Despite his reluctance to enter the war in the first place, Wilson was eager to influence the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations. He thought both were great opportunities to continue to push the United States as a global leader of peace and democracy that will shepherd other nations on a righteous path. However, this time it would not be the executive branch that would primarily impact foreign policy. It would be the Senate, as in 1920 they would strike down the Covenant of the League, which was Part I of the Treaty of Versailles drafted by Wilson himself. The decision was motivated “by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge, and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement. They adhered to a vision of the United States returning to its traditional aversion to commitments outside the Western Hemisphere” [9]. The rejection of the Treaty and Covenant would be major, as it would be a step back into the more isolationist nature of the United States as seen in the 19th century. Again, the ideology and policies around foreign engagement are intertwined, and despite a large number of citizens accepting entry into an international organization, the decision to not join the League of Nations and the arrival of Wilson’s successor William G. Harding would warp the philosophy once more to an isolationist viewpoint. It is important to highlight once more the impact societal philosophy and law can have on the lives of billions. If Theodore Roosevelt had won the Presidential Election of 1912, making him the president during World War I, he would have likely stoked the fire of American pride to enter the war as he wanted to in 1915. With that the war would have likely ended earlier, having some major ramifications on the rest of the world. With a less devastating ending to the war, Russia probably avoids the Bolshevik takeover as the provisional government is viewed as far stronger. Meaning the communist transformation in Russia would never occur and the Soviet Union would never form.
This is one of many considerations that one must contemplate when dissecting the impact of foreign policy decisions. Butterfly effects as such exist all across history, but especially when considering the legacy of many decisions made by U.S. leadership. To continue, the 1920s and 1930s would see the U.S. return to isolationism, especially with the Great Depression that was so severe it made any foreign issue seem irrelevant. One important feature that would arrive during the Depression of the 30s would be President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy. This would see another push into further isolationism, as Roosevelt’s policy would emphasize non-intervention in Latin American affairs. This in many ways was even more decisive than the Monroe Doctrine, as Roosevelt had no interest in meddling with Latin America, unlike Wilson. “In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of agreements in and with a world of neighbors. We now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take, but must give as well” [10]. Following Roosevelt, Congress would once again involve itself with the passing of the first Neutrality Act in 1935, which forbid “the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” from the United States to foreign nations at war and requiring arms manufacturers in the United States to apply for an export license”. The Neutrality Acts of 1937 would follow, where “U.S. citizens were forbidden from traveling on belligerent ships, and American merchant ships were prevented from transporting arms to belligerents even if those arms were produced outside of the United States”. While the Neutrality Act of 1939 would loosen the previous acts the point was made. The U.S. was backing out of supporting warfare in other nations. The new policies would set another precedent far similar to the 19th century, where the U.S. would primarily be removed from the dealing of other countries. The Roosevelt and Wilson administrations were seen as minor adjustments that were quickly removed. The return to neutrality would have an immediate impact by 1939 when World War II broke out. The United States as a whole was very reluctant to enter a war they deemed was between Europe and its many alliances.
The last decade of U.S. isolation policies had impacted the once eager Americans ready for war, as the country largely was in unison wanting to remain out of the war. Much of this stemmed from an increased desire to focus on domestic issues after the Depression, also partly because Americans did not know the true nature of the war in Europe. World War II was not a territorial and alliance-fueled conflict like World War I. World War II headlined a battle against fascism in a war to determine the dominant superpower in the world. Roosevelt would offer support to the Allies but after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would enter the war. After the war’s conclusion, similarly to World War I, the question of the United States joining an international organization would rise once again. The failure of the League of Nations was obvious with the rise of Nazi Germany, and Roosevelt “felt that this time, the United States needed to play a leading role both in the creation of the organization and in the organization itself. Moreover, in contrast to the League, the new organization needed the power to enforce key decisions'' [11]. After gaining enough bipartisan support, the Charter of the United Nations would be ratified and passed by Congress allowing U.S. membership in the new United Nations. With the end of World War II the Globalization Era came to an end. This era saw as the world became far more interconnected, it became harder and harder for the United States to remain isolated. The policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson took America away from isolationism and installed interventionist policies primarily in Latin America. Post World War I the country would attempt to return to solitude before being brought back to centerstage with World War II. Overall, despite the efforts of Congress and FDR during the 30s, the Globalization period saw the idea of isolationism slowly fade away. Interventionism would become a more prevalent idea, especially since the United States and its rival the Soviet Union were the last nations standing from World War II.
The Cold War Era
The Cold War Era will of course occupy the span of the Cold War of 1947-1991. As stated previously the once isolationist United States has transformed into the dominant superpower willing to engage in different affairs around the globe. With the added tension of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, foreign policy would become the talking point in America for over forty years. The Marshall Plan can be considered the first major policy regarding foreign affairs, but the plan was more about providing aid to war-torn Europe than the United States’s plan regarding international events. Something noticeable to mention about the Marshall would be the secondary purpose to reduce the spread of communism, a theme that would define American decision-making in this period. It would be President Harry S. Truman, continuing the trend of presidential influence on international policy, who would start the next shift in American foreign policy with his Truman Doctrine. The doctrine was made to ensure that the United States would involve itself in the aid of any democracy against authoritarian forces. If there was any semblance of the former isolationist ideals left, they were gone now.
After World War II, the United States in a way viewed itself as Woodrow Wilson did some time ago. A nation whose purpose was to promote democracy in foreign lands. Even despite the 30s reforms, Wilsonism still lives in the Truman Doctrine and future policies. It is stated that “Truman argued that the United States could no longer stand by and allow the forcible expansion of Soviet totalitarianism into free, independent nations because American national security now depended upon more than just the physical security of American territory. Rather, in a sharp break with its traditional avoidance of extensive foreign commitments beyond the Western Hemisphere during peacetime, the Truman Doctrine committed the United States to actively offering assistance to preserve the political integrity of democratic nations when such an offer was deemed to be in the best interest of the United States” [12]. Truman’s doctrine would be based upon communist and Soviet threats. In many ways, the shift in policy and ideology in American foreign policy can be stemmed from the circumstances during the paranoia-ridden Cold War.
As the Cold War would progress NATO would be established as an alliance to combat communism with other Western powers including some European countries. NATO can be seen as an expansion of the Truman Doctrine, with now the U.S. actively looking to stop communism from spreading rather than combatting it wherever it occurs. Containment would become the policy enacted by the U.S. when approaching communism and Soviet matters directly stemming from the Truman Doctrine. As in the name, the goal was to contain communism in areas where it was present to prevent it from spreading. This caused the United States to enter different countries, three of note being Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Korea and Vietnam were the direct results of containment, and both ended with less-than-desirable outcomes. The Korean War concluded with a stalemate but no formal ending, making it still unresolved to this day and the longest-standing conflict the United States has ever been involved in. Vietnam became the most controversial and contested conflict in American history to this day, and ending a military disaster for the U.S. Afghanistan is less well known and not the result of containment, but of funding to limit the influence of communism.
Simply put, the United States supported Afghan resistance fighters who fought against a Soviet regime. The support would empower these groups and after the Soviets and U.S. would leave the region, it would lead to the rise of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The impact of America’s Cold War interventionist mindset had dramatic repercussions on the rest of the world. The United States would fully adopt its role as a world power, and with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the United States would find itself the sole superpower on Earth. The Cold War era is defined by the aftereffects of the Globalization Era. Where the U.S. was forced to enter a larger global ecosystem, and now the foreign policy interests listed by presidents of old are expanded upon by later leadership and Congress. By the turn of the 21st century, the United States and its people fully believed it must protect a free world.
The Modern Era
The Modern Era takes us from the end of the Cold War to now. The U.S. had largely remained the same in its stance throughout the 90s. When the 2000s hit, it seemed the more relaxed foreign climate of the 90s would continue over as the United States reigned supreme. However, the September 11th Attacks would change everything. The 9/11 attacks prompted the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan during its “War on Terror”. However, it would be the disastrous effects of the War on Terror that would call into question America’s role globally. The embarrassment and chaos brought by the War on Terror would ring in the back of every American's mind afterward. The decision-making concerning recent conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine is impacted by the War on Terror. The United States has not seen as much major ideology or policy change since the end of the Cold War. Rather, the modern world has impacted American ideology behind its foreign policy.
The black-and-white time of old did not apply in the more complex modern world. The advent of social media and television also highlighted different opinions and perspectives regarding American interference. This increased conversation has caused pushback against an American government keen on interference, similar to the pushback during Vietnam. Through this piece, the layers of American policy and ideology have been pushed back. Precedents and circumstances have dramatically impacted the progression of foreign policy.
When looking to the future it is important to consider these many factors. We can likely assume the United States will continue to involve itself in the modern crisis, but only rival nations such as China, North Korea, and Russia will force a change in American policy. As we can see, contemporaries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union of the past all informed policy changes. Leadership cannot be overlooked as well, as the ideology of only one president Woodrow Wilson had a significant impact on the future of foreign affairs, with his Wilsonian ideals still being utilized today. The United States will continue to be defined by its relationships. How laws impact the ideologies of Americans have had and will continue to have a lasting impact on the future. It’s important to remember this as new conflicts and questions arise. We must think about the future, and consider just how impactful one single decision can be.
Endnotes
[1] Review of Article II Executive Branch. 2022. Constitution Annotated. July 12, 2022. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/.
[2] Washington, George. 1796. “Washington’s Farewell Address.” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf.
[3] “Monroe Doctrine (1823).” 2021. National Archives. June 25, 2021. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine.
[4] “Fordham Law School Fordham Law School.” n.d. Accessed December 3, 2023. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=faculty_scholarship#:~:text=Accordingly%20%2C%20from%20the%20state%20of.
[5] “Milestones: 1899–1913 - Office of the Historian.” n.d. History.state.gov. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/roosevelt-and-monroe-doctrine#:~:text=
[6] “Borzoi Reader | Authors | Walter Russell Mead.” n.d. Www.randomhouse.com. Accessed December 3, 2023. https://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/mead/excerpt.html.
[7] MonkEL. 2014. “Woodrow Wilson and the First World War.” Npg.si.edu. September 12, 2014. https://npg.si.edu/blog/woodrow-wilson-and-first-world-war.
[8] “Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War against Germany (1917).” 2021. National Archives. September 16, 2021. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/address-to-congress-declaration-of-war-against-germany#:~:text=As%20%20%20hostilities%20%20broke%20out%20between.
[9] “Milestones: 1914–1920 - Office of the Historian.” n.d. History.state.gov. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league#:~:text=Motivated%20by%20Republican%20concerns%20that.
[10] Hanke, Lewis. 2017. “What Is the Good Neighbor Policy? | AHA.” Historians.org. 2017. https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em14-is-the-good-neighbor-policy-a-success-(1945)/what-is-the-good-neighbor-policy.
[11] “The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 - October 1945.” 2023. State.gov. 2023. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm#:~:text=Once%20World%20War%20II%20began.
[12] 2 Office of the Historian. n.d. “Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian.” History.state.gov. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine#:~:text=With%20the%20true%20Doctrine%2C%20President.