From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Isolationism by country 2.1 China 2.2 Ireland 2.3 Japan 2.4 New Zealand 2.5 Paraguay 2.6 United States 2.6.1 Change over time 2.6.2 Current Status 3 See also 4 Works cited 5 References

"Isolationism" has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries.

The policy or doctrine trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

All the First World countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy, and are experiencing an expansion of the division of labor, generally raising living standards. However, some characterize this as "a wage race to the bottom" in the manufacturing industries that should be curtailed by protectionism. Some argue that isolating a country from a global division of labor--i.e. employing protectionist trading policies--could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Others argue that as the world's biggest consumer, with its own natural resources, the U.S. can wisely dictate what conditions can apply to goods and services imported for U.S. consumption, misunderstanding the nature of prices and their emergent, non-centrally planned, nature. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. But "best" too often means monetary, excluding human and ecological costs, due to firms externalizing costs as a result of inadequately defined property rights. Protectionism allegedly interferes in the market process, making people poorer than they would be otherwise.

On the other hand, non-interventionism arguably benefits a country by reducing both military spending (as it is limited to defensive purposes) and the chances of provoking an attack (by not meddling or employing intrigues in the internal affairs of foreign nations).

After the Zheng He voyages in the 15th century, the foreign policy of the Ming Dynasty in China became increasingly isolationist. The Qing Dynasty that came after the Ming often continued the later Ming Dynasty's isolationist policies. Around the 1500's China began isolationism. One reason China decided on this was to keep out as much foreign influence on religious beliefs as possible, especially from European traders who came into China with Christian missionaries. The first missionary said to have an impact on Chinese religious beliefs was an Italian Jesuit called Matteo Ricci. Many of the educated Chinese opposed this Christianity introduced by missionaries, but Ricci's scientific knowledge gained him prestige in these circles, first introducing the concepts of trigonometry, and predicting an eclipse of the sun more accurately than Chinese astronomers of the day.

Main article: Irish neutrality

Irish neutrality has been a policy of the Irish Free State and its successor the Republic of Ireland since independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1922. This policy led to Ireland's neutral stance during World War II.

Economically, the Navigation Acts restricted and taxed Irish trade, to the detriment of her economy, which was also affected badly by the Corn Laws. These were introduced to protect Britain against reliance on cheap imports of grain, and to safeguard the income and power of hereditary landowners rather than business interests. The Corn Laws were campaigned against by those who favoured a return to a more free trade practice. In the late 1840's, when British shipping had achieved a world monopoly, those protectionist acts and laws were repealed.

From 1641 to 1853, the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan enforced a policy which it called sakoku. The policy prohibited foreign contact to any outside country. During this time, the culture of Japan developed in ways mostly free of influence from the outside world and had one of the longest stretches of peace in history; however, in the absence of modernization, Japan eventually fell prey to foreign powers, and the harsh regime of economic and military development that Japan subsequently imposed on itself worked to modernize and militarize Japanese society.

Under the Muldoon government a high level of protectionism was in place. This was markedly reduced under the fourth Labour government when it came into power in 1984.

Just after independence was achieved, the country was governed since 1814 by the dictator Dr. Francia, who closed the borders of the country and prohibited trade or any relation with the exterior until his death in 1840.

Main article: United States non-interventionism

George Washington warned Americans not to "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition"^[1] Tom Barry, who is a Senior Analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, states that this was also the view held by most of America's founding fathers.^[2] Until the end of the nineteenth century, the U.S. generally turned a blind eye toward matters elsewhere in the world, but strong progressive tendencies began to make inroads into American policy during the Lincoln administration. These tendencies ultimately culminated in the international interventionist policies of the Wilson administration, which was the United States involvement in World War I. After the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and founding of the League of Nations by President Wilson (However it should be noted the United States would not become a member of the league of nations due to congress's refusal to sign the Treaty of Versailles), the United States population again turned to non-interventionism during the 1920s, opposing any action by the government that would drag the country into another European war. American non-interventionism was relegated to the back burner of social consciousness following the attack at Pearl Harbor and the defense of the United States from the foreign aggression of the Japanese, Italian, and German national socialists. For the most part, American non-interventionist policies were largely abandoned following the conclusion of World War II, particularly due to the world economic boom that coincided with the Allied victory and was attributed to curing the United States from the lingering effects of the Great Depression. However, the USA cannot be said to have upheld a complete non-interventionist policy during WWII prior to Pearl Harbor.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States' favorable attitude towards interventionism was strongly enhanced. For example, the National Security Strategy states,

...[T]he United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe... The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders. ^[3]

In addition, page 379 of the 9/11 Commission Report states,

In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests "over there" should be regarded just as we regard terrorism "over here." In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet.

United State foreign policy began to not only focus on world powers, but also on policing smaller, poorer nations.^[4]

By definitions from Tom Barry, the United States is currently, at least militarily, an Imperium or "An informal empire, allowing some degree of autonomy to member states but requiring strong leadership backed by global policing and military power."^[5] because policing by United States Military forces has been rather extensive. ^[6] Thus, in the United States today, only "...elements of this traditional isolationism remain..."^[7]

Economic isolationist tendencies, on the other hand, continue in the United States with only one-third of Americans believing free trade does more good than bad to the United States economy according to a Pew Research Center survey.^[8] Even though the United States currently has trade restrictions, President George W. Bush said that: "America has moved beyond that tired, defeatist mind-set, and we're not going back." ^[9]

• Sakoku
• United States non-interventionism
• Monroe Doctrine
• Imperium

• Cole, Wayne S. Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle against American Intervention in World War II (1974)
• Cole, Wayne S. America First: The Battle against Intervention, 1940-41 (1953)
• Kennedy, Thomas C. Charles A. Beard and American Foreign Policy (1975)
• Barry, Tom. “A Global Affairs Commentary: The Terms of Power” (Foreign Policy in Focus, November 6 2002)
• White House, The. The National Security Strategy of The United States. (September 2002)