International Studies, U.S. Foreign Policies

Question

What are tho common points of the U.S. foreign policy in the first part of the 21st century as compared to the U.S. foreign policy in the first part of the 20th century?

Answer 1

U.S. foreign policy has been characterized by a consistent ideological approach, an emphasis on economic considerations, and a commitment to promoting democracy. However, the specific strategies and challenges have evolved, with the 21st century seeing a greater reliance on military intervention and a shift in focus from traditional state-based threats to non-state actors and global instability. Furthermore, U.S. foreign policy focused on DIME; Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic of each country we engaged in.

Answer 2

I would like to add that another common point between the foreign policy in the first part of the 21st century and the first part of the 20th century would be the promotion of democracy.

Promoting democracy abroad (or forcing democracy on other nations - which is not a very democratic thing to do) was one of the common points in US foreign policy both in the first part of the 20th and in the first part of the 21st century. Although the ways and means of promoting democracy changed over time, promotinig democracy is a common thread in US foreign policy as a way to achieve national security objectives.

In the first part of the 20th century, we can break it downn as follows:

1. WWI: Wilson's 14 Points (1918): he framed the war as a fight to "make the world safe for democracy" and argued that spreading democratic government and establishing collective security through the League of Nations would prevent future wars. He also believed that undemocratic, militaristic empires like Germany and Austria-Hungary, threatened global peace and US security. As a result, by promoting democracy and self-determination, the US wanted to reduce the chance of aggressive regimes being able to threaten American interests again in the future.
2. WWII: Franklin D. Roosevelt described America's role in supplying the Allies with weapons as being "the Arsenal of Democracy". He considered it the duty of America to defend democracy worldwide against fascism. FDR also connected democracy to fundamental rights (such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of want) and framed WWII as a moral and security struggle. Again, promoting democracy by defeating fascism were seen as essential to securing US national security in the long run.

TLDR: In both WWI and WII, US Presidents framned intervention not only as a military necessity, but as a defense of democracy. They claimed that spreading democracy or protecting democratic systems abroad would create a safer international order (and obviously also protect the US itself)

Similarly, promotion of democracy was a goal in US foreign policy in the first part of the 21st century. Let's break this one down:

1. Afghanistan (2001): After overthrowing the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda terrorists, the US helped install a democratic govenrment with elections - obviously this was in the interest of national security for the US.
2. Iraq (2003): President George W. Bush claimed that removing dictator Saddam Houssein would allow for democratic leadership in Iraq and it could serve as a model for other countries in the Middle East
3. War on terror: also here the Bush Doctrine emphasized preemptive action against those states that harbored terrorists and as a result tied US security to spreading freedom. In his second inaugural address, Bush even stated that teh US had a "mission to end tyranny in our world". In this case, the belief was that democracies were less likely to breed extremism or wage aggressive wars, so again, by encouraging democracies in the Middle East and elsewhere, long term threats to the US would be reduced.

TLDR: Just like in WWI and WWII (first half of 20th c), the US framed wars in the first half of the 21st c not only about defeating enemies, but also about building a more democratic world order. In both cases, this was done out of the belief that a more democratic world was essential to long-term American security

Answer 3

In the 21st century, U.S. foreign policy centered on counterterrorism after 9/11, especially in the Middle East, and more recently shifted toward an “America First” approach. In the early 20th century, Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy showed U.S. strength in the Western Hemisphere, but the country pulled back into isolation after WWI, until WWII pushed it into a global leadership role. The common thread is that U.S. policy often mixes restraint with decisive action. It avoids constant involvement abroad, but when challenged, it asserts its power forcefully.

If you’d like, I can walk you through examples and strategies to make these, or other comparisons, even clearer for class or an essay.

Answer 4

A common point is that during both periods, the United States focused on expanding our involvement in global affairs, just into different regions. In the early 20th century, we became more directly involved in the European and Pacific theaters. In the 21st century, our focus has been more oriented towards the Middle East (specifically Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan), due to the War on Terror and our role as global hegemon.

In the first part of the 20th century, the US gradually shifted our foreign policy from an isolationist strategy focused exclusively on the Americas to becoming far more directly involved in European and Pacific affairs. Our victory in the Spanish-American War in 1898 ultimately brought us control of the Philippines and set us on a course for war with Japan in World War II, as the Japanese sought to dominate the Pacific during this time. The construction of the Panama Canal in the early 20th century further cemented our intentions to dominate commerce in the Americas and expand into Pacific markets.

Our participation in World War I saw us get directly involved with European affairs for the first time, and Woodrow Wilson's failed attempt to establish a League of Nations set a precedent for the kind of relationship we would ultimately have with Europe and the rest of the world decades later. Our involvement in World War II firmly ended our isolationist foreign policy, and instead saw the United States replace Great Britain as the global hegemon. The newly established United Nations keeps us firmly involved in global conflicts, and as the world's hegemon, we shoulder the majority of the burden in UN "peacekeeping" activities (Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc.).

In the 21st century, our direct involvement has been focused on the Middle East. After the 9/11 attacks, we launched a campaign of retribution in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, with mixed results. In 2003, we became directly involved in Iraq for a second time (after the Gulf War in the early 1990s), overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime. And after those campaigns concluded, most recently we aided Israel in their attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran has been an enemy of the United States since their revolution and overthrow of the shah in 1979. In the aftermath of the Cold War, China has replaced Russia as our primary geopolitical adversary. Our broader foreign policy has shifted towards maintaining our status as global hegemon against a loose alliance of China, Russia, Iran, and their proxies. We have attempted to bolster our position with strategic alliances with nations such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, and the Philippines. The strength of these coalitions will be tested if China tries to invade Taiwan.

Another common point across both time periods is our direct involvement in the global oil market. In 1941, our embargo of Japan cut their access to oil and crippled their economic and militaristic ambitions, leading to them declaring war on the US with the attack on Pearl Harbor. In recent times, we have attacked the Houthi rebels in Yemen, due to their frequent attacks in the Persian Gulf disrupting the flow of oil and other commodities in the global trade network.

Answer 5

Several common points between the U.S. foreign policy in the first part of the 20th c. and the 1st part of the 21st c. can be identified as follows:

1) asserting the U.S. political influence at a global scale, albeit in different sectors (industrial superpower in the early 1900s and military superpower in the early 2000s);

2) redefining the U.S. demographical structure (influx of European immigrants in the early 1900s and influx of Asian immigrants in the early 2000s);

3) redefining the U.S. political-social culture as the most globally-influential model (the risky proto-emancipation and expansion movements in the early 1900s were subsequently embraced and admired worldwide as "the pioneer model" and "the democracy model"; meanwhile, in the early 2000s, a "hard power" return to a grass-roots-supported nationalist-centered culture that spearheads nationalism-centered (as well as polarized) social and cultural objectives has been embraced in parts of Europe, too; this political-cultural orientation actually resonates with many of the traditional political-cultural realities of Asian, South American and Middle Eastern regions, too -- thus, potentially, allowing the U.S. to globally lead the way again in a new direction if its model achieves the objective of attracting global admiration and support as in the past.