University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1972 Isolationism and American foreign policy. George Charles Grosscup University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Grosscup, George Charles, "Isolationism and American foreign policy." (1972). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1917. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1917 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISOLATIONISM AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY A Dissertation Presented By George Charles Grosscup III Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PfflLOSOPHY September 1972 Major Subject Political Science ii Copyright by George Charles Grosscup III 1972 ill ISOLATIONISM AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY A Dissertation By George Charles Grosscup III Approved as to style and cont^flt by (Chairman of Committee) (Head of Department) (Member) (Member) September 1972 A CKNOWLEDGME NT My appreciation goes to the members of my dissertation committee for their assistance and advice during the research and writing of the dissertation. My special thanks to Professor Ferenc Vali for his invaluable assistance in the development of many of the ideas discussed in the dissertation. To Professor Gerard Braunthal and Professor E. W. A. Bernhard for their organizational suggestions and critical clarifications I am indebted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page INTRODUCTION . „ . I INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPTS OF FOREIGN POLICY . 1 n THE CONCEPT AND POLICY OF ISOLATIONISM ..... 10 III ISOLATIONISM IN JAPAN, CHINA, AND GREAT BRITAIN 24 IV ISOLATIONISM AND TRADITIONAL AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY . 81 V THE NEW INTERNATIONALISM , 132 CONCLUSION „ 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY 198 vi INTRODUCTION the From very beginning of its existence as an independent nation, the United States has found itself caught in a dilemma over its proper role in international politics. From the Founding Fathers to the present political figures, Americans both in and out of the realm of government have debated and argued over the character and direction of American foreign policy. In most instances, these debates have been characterized as ones betv^een advocates of internationalism and isolationism. In fact, the initial debate over foreign policy in the First Continental Congress was between the "internationalists" who sought both commercial and military ties with European nations, in particular France, and the "isolationists" who argued that American interests should be separate and non-entangled from those of Europe. At different times the debate has raged more intensely than at others. In the 1850's the popularity of the "Young America" movement and its demand for a more active international role by the United States brought the debate to center stage. In the 1890 's the American expansion into the Pacific was cause for alarm among those who defended America's traditional policy of independence and non-entanglement. At different times in the first half of the Twentieth Century the debate between internationalism and isolationism threatened to split the nation in half particularly in the 1920's VII and the late 1930 's. The American decision to take an active role in the post-World War II period officially ended the debate over the direction of American foreign policy. Through membership in the United Nations, NATO, SEATO, and various other international organizations, the United States signaled its intention to take an active part in the politics of the international community. Now firmly committed to its international role, the debate between internationalism and isolationism seemed irrelevant. But with the breakup of the bi-polar world in the 1960's, the rising controversy over American involvement in Southeast Asia, the erosion of Russian control over the communist world, and the emergence of European and Pacific centers of economic power there is again an important debate over the character and direction of American foreign policy. Once again, the debate presently taking place within the United States has been labeled as one between the internationalists, those who want to continue American policies of containment and intervention, and the isolationists, those seeking to with- draw the United States from any international responsibility. The focus of this dissertation is the present debate over American foreign policy. Specifically, attention will be centered on those characterized as "isolationist" for there is some question as to whether the use of that label is a proper one. In fact, opponents of American "globalism" have charged that the isolationist characterization of their position grossly misrepresents their policies and goals for America in the international setting. Vlll They maintain that the isolationist label, because of its pejorative connotations, is used by the globalist camp to discredit the anti-globalist position. Chapter V will deal directly with this controversy by investigating the relevancy of the isolationist label to the liberal critique of American foreign policy. The first part of the dissertation will be concerned with the explication of the concept "isolationism. " Little attempt has been made to use isolationism in a consistent manner. Different people use it in various ways, often attaching different meanings to it. As a result, there exists a great deal of controversy over what constitutes an isolationist foreign policy. This is particularly important in terms of American foreign policy debates since the concept of isolationism has been applied so often to describe it. An important part of the explication of the concept isolationism will revolve around Ludwig Wittgenstein's distinction between criteria and symptoms. The major point here is that in seeking to arrive at a useful and meaningful definition of isolationism, it is important that the definition include the defining criteria. In the past the attempted definitions have been founded upon symptoms of isolationism and not criteria which accounts for their rather spurious nature. To aid in clarifying the arrived at definition of isolationism three case studies have been chosen. The case studies of both Japan and China are to be used to help clarify the meaning of isolationism as it has been explicated here. The third case study, that on Britain's period of "splendid isolation" IX Will by contrast demonstrate the often spurious application of isolationism with regard to different kinds of foreign policy. Armed with a useful definition of isolationism and hopefully with some notion as to what constitutes an isolationist foreign policy the focus of the treatise will turn to historical and contemporary American foreign policy. In Chapter IV the purpose will be to apply the arrived at definition to the special circumstances of America's traditional foreign policy, which has so often been characterized as isolationist. By means of this examination it can be seen as to whether or not this has been a proper characterization. Finally, Chapter V will focus on the current debate in American foreign policy and the relevancy of the isolationist label to the liberal critique of the globalist position. Through such an examination it will be possible to put the current debate into proper perspective and to clarify the real issues involved in this debate. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPTS OF FOREIGN POTJCY In this brief initial chapter the aim is to explain in a general manner the prevailing notions about the foundations, definitions and objectives of foreign policy. Such a discussion is important in that it serves as a needed guideline and foundation for treatment of the rationale for and against adherence to a foreign policy of isolationism. A foreign policy is a program designed to achieve the best possible position for a nation vis-a-vis other nations. It is usually conceived of as a program using peaceful means of diplomacy to achieve the objectives of the nation. Foreign policies, however, have been pursued in which the threat of war was used as a means of attaining national goals. The fact that the behavior of states can have beneficial or adverse effects on other states confronts every state with the major problem of minimizing the adversities and maximizing the beneficial actions of foreign states. Therefore, foreign policy is essentially a means of adjusting the actions of states to each other. A foreign policy is the vehicle by which a state propagates the values of its society into competition vvdth the values of other nations within the " 2 international system. Because different societies have or decide upon different values, the objectives of a foreign policy will vary from state to state. This is so because a foreign policy "consists of a society's attempt to realize in the international plane certain notions of what it conceives 1 as good." Not all nations will decide on the same goals as "good. There are, however, several objectives or goals which in general all foreign policies seek to achieve. Such common objectives as self- preservation, security or territorial sovereignty usually rate as the primary objectives of all nations. This is especially true of the goal of security. All other objectives and the values of that society mean relatively little unless the goal of security has been achieved to some extent. Therefore, it is the security goal which concerns most state's policy -maimers, as the security required before that objective is reached is rather difficult to calculate. Because of the ever-changing environment of international politics, it is a never-ending process. According to Charles Lerche and Abdul Said, (in Concepts of International Politics ) "what the security objective of the state amounts to is no more than the reduction of all visible and conceivable threats to a practical minimum.