Memorandum
Date 2/20/17
To: President Trump
From: Orlando Manfredi
Subject: Increasing Isolationist Policies
Presidents since FDR have conducted interventionist foreign policy. No matter the time or the party Presidents have used a variety of justifications for different types of intervention. In a time of institutions the role of a police power such as the United States is no longer necessary to ensure that conflicts do not arise. Starting with the prominent flop that was the Vietnam War, military interventions across the globe have proved to be less than successful. From Somalia to Iraq and Libya, military peacekeeping and nation building exercises have made situations worse or unchanged from when before the United States intervened. Free trade is not dependent on government treaties and agreements and being isolationist doesn't mean that the United States Government cannot be in communication with other nations. A realistic form of isolationism that could actually be implemented is simply a sense of when to walk away and let the international community or the nation itself deal with its own issues.
By having specific favorite nations the US as global hegemon incites more conflict, most prevalent example is US relations with Israel. By having such a powerful ally other Arab nations are more emboldened to attack what they perceive as a nation that should not exist. Free trade has existed before government treaties and agreements and with less influence from the United States government not only would domestic trade flourish when being unburdened by regulations but international trade would increase with the full might of the American economy unleashed and open for free and open trade on the terms that benefit companies and individuals most.
NGO’s and other international institutions can fill in the humanitarian gap that would be left by a country such as the United States. These may be systems set up by the United States for its own benefit but now they are large and established enough that they can operate autonomously without influence from governments and perhaps even become run privately. Already in the 21st there has been a proliferation of private NGO’s that if given even greater autonomy and role by a lack of US government involvement. The United States should not turn all the way inward and not acknowledge the outside world but a United States government who has unloaded much of its responsibilities onto companies to do trade and NGO’s to do humanitarian aid and so the only government role that would still be needed is to ensure war does not break out among other nations. Like most things in life the best and most prudent choice is one that doesn't lean towards any extremes. For the past century US foreign policy has leaned towards extremely interventionist and it is in the best interest for the citizens of the US to have their government lean more isolationist.
Orlando,
ReplyDeleteYour post is really good!
Like we said in class the United States is not at the peak it once was and we are slowing declining from the article we read by Ryan Lizza.
I find it hard though to know where exactly I stand on this issue like we discussed in class. I think isolationist views are good and due to this decline that Lizza mentioned that having a more isolationist approach would stop our downward trend. Then on the other hand, I do not know if we should lean more towards it because then I feel like other nations may try to take more control of the global community. Although there are institutions and NGO's in place, I am not sure how strong they are if another country tries to change them.
Although I do agree that isolationist views are good so that we can grow and focus on domestic issues and come together more as a country especially with the change in the current administration I also feel like we are deeply divided compared to the past with the Obama and Bush administrations.
The other point to be made is that focusing on ourselves would make us stronger and then if other countries try to take control we could take it back in the future.
I am undecided on whether or not to agree or disagree with your post because I feel a delicate balance is needed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOrlando,
ReplyDeleteThis was really well written.
I liked how you started out by pointing out how Presidents after FDR mostly had an interventionist foreign policy. I agree with parts of your points personally but can see and understand it from your point of view as well. I do think that an isolationist type of foreign policy could be helpful for the Unites States but don't think it should be completely isolationist and should be a mix between an isolationist and interventionist foreign policy depending on the situation personally.
I liked how you pointed out what we should do to feel the gap and the effect it would have if the United States went from being isolationists to interventionists in foreign policy also.
Overall this was really well written and I liked the points you made.
Hi Orlando,
ReplyDeleteThis is a nicely written post. I like your proposition of a more isolationist government. It made me think of the possibilities with the implementation of an isolationist view. You provided a convincing argument for your point. I am uncertain on where I stand on this issue. I agree with AnFei that a delicate balance is needed. Good job.
Hi Orlando,
ReplyDeleteI liked your arguments and basis for moving towards a more isolationist form of government. The best, and key, point was that it would allow us to focus on strengthening ourselves and that other groups and organizations could take over in the role of international support. I agree that there should be a balance of ideologies, as you point out towards the end, but this is a very good memo.