下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- The American isolationist foreign policy，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了美国的孤立主义外交政策。美国的孤立主义是一项和平时期的外交政策，它不放纵对外介入的感性冲动，采取务实的路线，以在现有国际格局中最大限度地降低国家安全风险，利用国外资源提高民众福利。
Isolationism was a long-standing and unswerving foreign policy of the United States before World War II. It should be the basic content of isolationist diplomacy to avoid intervening in external affairs politically and militarily. Accordingly, the isolationist diplomacy of the United States started in the 1820s. After World War II, with the beginning of the cold war, isolationist diplomacy finally retired from the stage of history.
Isolationism is a controversial phenomenon in the history of American diplomacy. Up to now, there have been fierce debates about "what is isolationism", "when and finally when" and so on. An in-depth and effective academic discussion should be based on the accurate definition of the core discourse. This essay attempts to analyze the connotation of American isolationist diplomacy, so as to seek advice from the local scholars.
The connotation of "isolationism" has always been ambiguous, and there are not only wide differences in American academic circles, but also differences in understanding. There are mainly several representative theories.
Eugene R, Wittkopf, Charles, w. egley, Jr. Thomas Jefferson supported isolationism as the best way for America to sustain and grow as a free nation." Isolationists are "those who oppose active U.S. involvement in international affairs, whether through mediation or conflict." This view was held by Charles a. beard, the standard-bearer of the progressive school, bemis and roque, the famous diplomatic historians, but this view was opposed by the famous diplomatic historian bailey, William a. Williams, the leading figure of the new left, and the contemporary American international political scholar rossetti fJerel, a. roch. "The elements of traditional American foreign policy are very clear -- isolationism and protectionism," mead said. In foreign countries, a large proportion of scholars hold this view, and this theory mainly explains isolationism from the perspective of national policy.
Isolationists argue that U.S. national interests can best be achieved "by taking formspapers the world, or by keeping a healthy distance from outside events at a minimum," notes gerp. Isolationism and internationalism are divided by means, not ends; The Monroe doctrine, the refusal to join the league of nations, the neutrality act of the 1930s, and the fear of future Vietnamese are all examples of isolationist principles. But he also acknowledged that isolationism and internationalism are two opposing overall U.S. foreign policy orientations. John w Davis agrees.
According to John c. halberg, isolationism refers to a series of ideas about the United States and its place in the world, which had a great influence on American foreign policy in the late 18th and early 20th centuries.
Cecil v. rabb: "starting with the farewell address in Washington, isolationism is really a set of attitudes and assumptions about America's particular relationship with the outside world. Isolationism has had several components from the beginning, and when the concept is applied to specific situations prevailing at home, each era tends to modify its content."
Most scholars in China accept the "policy theory", but some experts in American diplomatic history, such as Yang shengmao, wang xiaode and wang wei, are in favor of the "principle theory". Comparatively speaking, there are two obvious characteristics of relevant domestic works: one is that almost all the authors will define the meaning of isolationism when they refer to it. In most cases, this is not out of the cognition of relevant differences in American academic circles, but to distinguish the eastern-based policy of isolation. Second, it repeatedly emphasizes the active initiative of isolationist diplomacy and its geographical orientation towards Europe. However, when domestic scholars define isolationism, they lack the trace of the concept itself and the grasp of the connotation of isolationism in the dynamic process. Many scholars transplant isolationism in political discourse into academic research, which has become a major cause of disagreement. Because the isolationism in political discourse itself is strong
If we define American foreign policy before world war ii as isolationism, it can be summed up as nonalignment, an effort to remain neutral in national disputes, a refusal to intervene militarily and politically; Of course, once American interests are threatened or challenged overseas and the United States is able to intervene, American foreign policy will not be constrained by the latter two elements.
Many early American politicians often had the traditional European concept of "balance of power". Many early politicians recognized the existence of a European balance of power, and to some extent its importance to American security. This is reflected in John Adams, Jefferson and others. In 1783, in a conversation with Richard Oswald, the British peace negotiator, Adams said, "it is evident that the European powers have been playing tricks on us to induce us into their actual or imaginary balances of power. In calculating our own strength, they all hope to make us complementary weights. This is hardly surprising. We can change the balance, though not always. But I think non-intervention should be our principle; the principle of the European powers should be that they don't want us to get involved, and if they can, they may not even allow us to get involved." In a parliamentary debate on March 1, 1798, gallatin, later secretary of state, argued that the balance of power in Europe had simply been the cause of many useless wars. "... We have no interest in that balance. We should completely forget about it and ignore it." In July of that year, senator George Cabot noted in a letter that "we are at least equal in our power." But isolationism is clearly incompatible with the idea of the balance of power, which needs to intervene firmly when necessary to restore the balance that has been broken. It was j.q. Adams who finally abandoned the ideological basis of the balance of power. In his 1821 independence day speech, he said, "wherever the standards of freedom and independence may be found, or shall be found, there is her heart, her blessing, and her prayer. But she will not go abroad in search of demons to destroy. America sincerely wants freedom for the world, but it has fought for itself, only to avenge it... She is very clear, once she stood on the other, rather than under their own flags, even standing under foreign flags to gain independence, she will get into the war of the benefit and the plot, a personal greed, envy and ambition of war and cannot extricate oneself, often in the name of freedom, because the war to usurp the standards of freedom. The basic tenets of her policy will be unknowingly transformed from freedom to violence... She could be the dictator of the world. She will no longer be the ruler of his own spirit." This abandonment was embodied in the Monroe doctrine of 1823. Later, President polk repeated this view in his annual address on December 2, 1845, and President Wilson in his annual address on January 22, 1918. Therefore, in terms of the formation of its connotation, isolationist diplomacy should begin in the early 1820s.
As for the end of isolationist diplomacy, bemis thinks it took place between 1947 and 1955; Mr Finderlin argues that isolationism is used to describe American foreign policy for most of the 19th century, but more often during the second world war, and that it does not apply to Latin America or China; President McKinley argued that after 1898, "isolation is no longer possible or desirable." Domestic views include the introduction of Truman doctrine and the establishment of NATO. To illustrate this issue, we should start from the specific historical facts, through the specific examination of American foreign policy during the World War II, so as to reach a more reasonable conclusion.
After the World War I, the tendency of American foreign policy to return to isolationism was very obvious, which was accepted by most scholars. The war greatly strengthened the popular sentiment of isolationism and thus dealt a fatal blow to Wilson's world policy. Memories of the war and disappointment with Europe, amplified by the media and stirred by social elites, quickly coalessed-into a powerful wave of isolationism. In the 1930s, the great crisis, the war debt problem, the investigation from 1934 to 1936, and the revisionist reinterpretation of the reasons for America's involvement in World War I greatly increased the sense of deception and distrust of big companies, Banks, and the President. This sentiment was evident in the mid-legislation after 1935, as well as in the opinion polls on the state of affairs in Europe.
The rejection of the treaty by the United States senate, despite various reasons, has objectively become the main symbol of the resurgence of isolationism. In March 1922, the senate added a reservation to its ratification of the four-strong treaty: "no commitment to the use of force, no alliance, no obligation to engage in any defensive action." After the war, when disagreements over compensation arose, hughes, America's secretary of state, said that "strong domestic opposition would make successful action impossible". The United States opposed the Geneva protocol, which strengthened the league of nations, and refused to join the international court of justice. Since 1917, France had been seeking an alliance with the United States against Germany, but was ultimately rejected by the United States for signing the multilateral non-war convention. Moreover, the United States states that the signing of the treaty does not prevent the United States from enforcing the Monroe doctrine or engaging in sanctions against other countries.
On the other hand, in Europe, the United States began to implement the so-called "economic diplomacy" represented by the dawes and young programs. But economic diplomacy in Europe is not a repudiation of isolationism. First of all, whether it is the dawes plan or the young plan, or the large amount of investment in Europe, especially in Germany, which helps restore the balance of power in the European continent, the first thing is to protect the overseas trade and investment of the United States and guarantee the recovery of war debts. In the Americas, the 1928 clark memorandum repudiated the legitimacy of Roosevelt's reasoning, ending criticism of Roosevelt's reasoning since the 1920s. By 1932, the U.S. withdrew from all of Latin America except for the panama canal zone. In addition, from the Montevideo Pan-American conference in 1933, the United States formally promised to give up interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In Asia, the open door policy is nothing more than a diplomatic gesture. "governments from 1899 to 1989 were reluctant to support China's open door policy with concrete actions. Even its author admitted in a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States: "the United States has no intention of using force to defend China's territorial integrity." Between 1920 and 1937, the United States recognized the dominant position of Russia and Japan in northeast China. One of the circumstantiary signs of American isolationist foreign policy during this period was a reminder to Hitler by the German ambassador to the United States, Hans tiekerhoff. "The United States will not be 'isolationist' forever," he said. "there can be no illusions about it," but Hitler believed that "the United States is nothing but a weak, non-interventionist state." From the eve of the outbreak of the European war in 1939 to Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the nominal policy of the United States gradually separated from the real policy. On the one hand, the U.S. government insists on staying out of conflicts overseas, but it is actually getting involved step by step. Roosevelt's charlotte address, in which he explicitly denounced isolationism, marked a shift in America's nominal foreign policy. Subsequently, American involvement in the war gradually intensified. Still, the United States did not choose to declare war.
So does America's behavior on the eve of the World War II, and between them, signal the end of isolationist diplomacy? No. Because war is such a state of affairs, wartime foreign policy is marked by obvious expediency. The key question is whether this policy orientation will continue after the war. The United States' large-scale involvement in the external political and military conflicts in World War I ended abruptly after the war, so it cannot be regarded as the end of isolationism. The situation after World War I was very different, and the changes in American wartime policy continued and intensified. The chapultepec resolution, signed by the United States in March 1945, and the treaty of Rio DE janeiro, ratified by the senate on 19 December 1947, were both clearly allied. On June 11, 1948, the United States senate adopted resolution 239 by an overwhelming majority of 64 to 4, suggesting that the President may "gradually establish regional and other collective arrangements for individual or collective self-defence, in accordance with the purposes, principles and provisions of the charter". It is thought to be the first time the us senate has publicly endorsed peacetime alliances with other countries. In 1949, the United States established and joined the north Atlantic treaty organization, thus making the scope of the alliance beyond the Americas. At the same time, the United States maintains an unprecedented number of troops in Asia and Europe. At this point, all other isolationist policy measures except the promotion of business are coming to an end. So the end of isolationism began at the beginning of World War II and ended with the establishment of NATO.
Isolationism is, in a sense, a peacetime foreign policy. It does not indulge the impulse to get involved. It takes a pragmatic approach to minimize national security risks in the current international situation, and USES foreign resources to improve the welfare of the people. The study on the connotation of isolationism in the United States is also of great significance to China's foreign policy and practice. At present, China is undergoing a critical period of socialist modernization. Peace and development are also two major themes in the world today. Therefore, it is a wise choice for China not to participate in or try to avoid external disputes, to develop itself and to make the most of advantages and avoid disadvantages as much as possible when its national strength is limited. Of course, a country's diplomacy is in direct proportion to its strength. In the 20th century, especially after the World War II, the United States and the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries were like "giants" and "pygmies", which could not be said in the same day. The isolationism adapted to the small and weak America in the 20th century has become a cut and fit fit, and its exit from the stage of history is only a matter of time.
想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
