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

Key Commonalities: 21st Century (Post-2000) vs. 20th Century (Pre-1950)

1. Promotion of Democracy & Ideals: Both eras are characterized by an idealistic push to spread American-style democracy and market economies, often described as a "Wilsonian" mission to reshape the world.
2. Interventionism and Global Power Projection: While the 20th century saw the U.S. shift from regional to global power (WWI/WWII), the 21st century similarly uses military, economic, and political tools to influence international affairs and combat threats like terrorism.
3. Economic Diplomacy and Trade Security: Both periods use economic leverage—ranging from dollar diplomacy in the early 1900s to modern sanctions—to advance political objectives, secure trade, and ensure prosperity,
4. Upholding a Specific Global Order: Just as the U.S. sought to define the post-WWI era, the early 21st century has been focused on maintaining a U.S.-led liberal international order, even as that role faces challenges and questions.

Answer 3

Speak Softly, and Carry a Big Stick - US Foreign Policy from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush

In both the early 1900s and the early 2000s, the United States pursued policies aimed at expanding its role as a global leader. Although the contexts were different, the underlying goal—shaping international systems in ways that protect U.S. interests—remained consistent.

Early 20th Century: During this period, the U.S. shifted from isolation to active global engagement. Actions such as the Spanish‑American War, the construction of the Panama Canal, and President Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” diplomacy demonstrated a desire to project power and influence international affairs. After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson pushed for the League of Nations, signaling a belief that the U.S. should help shape global order, even though the Senate rejected membership.

Early 21st Century: Following the September 11 attacks, the U.S. again asserted a leadership role, this time in the context of global terrorism and security. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the broader “War on Terror,” reflected a belief that American leadership was necessary to maintain global stability. The U.S. also continued to influence international institutions, alliances like NATO, and global economic systems.

Common Point: Across both eras, the U.S. acted not just as a participant in world affairs but as a nation seeking to set the rules, shape global norms, and protect its strategic interests through active leadership.

Answer 4

Foreign policy was geared as applying the military and public assets to shore up markets for corporate interests and U.S. influence.

Intervening in the World Wars on the side of England, for example, helped Standard Oil secure Saudi oil reserves.

The Marshall Plan helped a war-torn Europe rebuild, securing opportunities for U.S. influence and markets for corporations. U.S. aid has only increased, subsidizing corporations and governments supporting their interests.

The federal government argued that it was fighting to promote American ideals, like freedom and democracy. Compare this with the War on Terrorism in which wars were waged to promote democracy abroad.

Americans were reluctant to fight foreign wars at the beginning of the 20th century and remain so today.

Answer 5

This is an important question to ask! Scholars and civilians alike have tended to agree that the United States is a world-leading democracy with a prosperous market economy and a diverse overall population (although the current U.S. government's value of that concept in particular has broadly shifted).

The U.S. President and members of Congress, as well as the CIA and Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and State have consistently emphasized the spread of democracy and national security amongst other world nations.

When examining the first two World Wars, you want to understand which foreign governments restricted freedom and threatened peaceful world order. You then want to identify the policy instruments that U.S. officials enacted to structure their relations with other nations at those earlier times. Which ideologies and laws defined U.S. foreign relations at those earlier moments in history?

Today, although the main entities involved in U.S. foreign relations may have shifted, U.S. policy goals have remained relatively constant. Conflicts have frequently unfolded outside of the West in areas such as Afghanistan, the DRC, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Palestine, Mexico, Russia, Rwanda, Somalia, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

In the eyes of U.S. politicians, which officials in those countries posed large threats to a peaceful and democratic world order (particularly those viewed as autocrats)? Has the U.S. government responded to their actions using diplomatic or war-centered approaches?

You will find that the individuals involved in every case, as well as the geographic and cultural characteristics of each case, will vary greatly. However, you may notice certain ideologies and forms of foreign relations that the U.S. government has often promoted as you analyze each case.

Answer 6

Despite being a century apart, U.S. foreign policy in both the early 1900s and early 2000s shared several major themes:

1. Global Involvement and Interventionism –
2. In both periods, the United States took an active role in world affairs.
3. Early 20th century: The U.S. intervened in Latin America and entered World War I to “make the world safe for democracy.”
4. Early 21st century: The U.S. led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to fight terrorism and promote democracy.
5. → In both eras, America moved beyond isolationism to assert itself as a global leader.
6. Promotion of Democracy and American Ideals –
7. Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush framed U.S. actions as defending or spreading democratic values.
8. → Both periods used moral or ideological justifications for foreign intervention.
9. Protection of Economic Interests –
10. Early 20th century: “Dollar Diplomacy” sought to expand U.S. investments and trade influence abroad.
11. Early 21st century: Policies promoted free trade, globalization, and access to energy resources.
12. → In both times, economic motives underpinned foreign engagement.
13. Maintenance of Military Power –
14. Both eras emphasized building and maintaining strong armed forces to support foreign policy goals.
15. The Great White Fleet (1907) symbolized early 20th-century naval power.
16. Advanced technology and global military presence defined early 21st-century power.
17. → The U.S. relied on military strength to project influence.
18. Response to Perceived Global Threats –
19. Early 20th century: Fear of European imperialism and later communism.
20. Early 21st century: Fear of terrorism and rogue states.
21. → Both policies were driven by security concerns about emerging global dangers.

Answer 7

Between 1900-1950, The U.S. was emerging as a global power after industrialization, and its foreign policy was deeply intertwined with colonial ambitions and economic expansion. Think imperialism—not in the sense of outright colonies like Britain or France, but through economic control, military interventions, and territorial acquisitions (i.e. the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, interventions in Central America and the Caribbean—“banana republics”).

Policy was guided by capitalist expansion: the U.S. wanted new markets, raw materials, and profitable investments abroad. The U.S. also wanted to stop communism, especially seen in the "Cold War" decades after WWII (1950s -1980s).

The rhetoric of “spreading democracy” often masked economic and strategic goals, tied directly to the legacy of European colonialism.

By mid-century, the U.S. starts confronting communism, but it’s mostly European fascism first seen in WW II. The U.S. emerges as a global hegemon not just militarily, but economically, consolidating a capitalist world order after the Allied victory of WW II.

Now circa 2000, the U.S. operates in a postcolonial world, where most territories are formally independent, but economic and military influence maintains neocolonial patterns. Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, Latin America—interventions framed as “democracy promotion” or “counterterrorism” but often serve corporate interests, resource access, and geostrategic dominance.

The Cold War lens of capitalism vs. communism shifts into capitalism vs. regional powers and terrorism, but the global capitalist project is paramount. China’s rise brings back elements of ideological competition, but now it’s a more nuanced capitalist rivalry than outright communism vs. capitalism.

Policy is highly justified through soft power, international institutions, and multilateralism, but the underlying logic is still economic domination and securing global markets—a postcolonial form of influence, rather than direct territorial control.

In short,

A) Early U.S. 20th century foreign policy was 1) direct or quasi-direct colonial control 2) capitalism expansion 3) anti-communism (mostly theoretical yet evolved into the the mid-20th Century 'Cold War' and proxy battles seen in Vietnam and Korea)

B) Early U.S. 21st Century was/is 1) indirect/neocolonial control 2) postcolonial world framework 3) capitalism remains the engine 4) communism mostly replaced by corporate rivals 5) terrorism or 'rising powers,' interventions framed as “humanitarian” or “security” missions.

Basically, what you notice is that historians rarely frame U.S. policy in terms of capitalism and postcolonial power structures, even though these forces are the connective tissue from the 1900s to today. Colonialism evolves into neocolonialism, but the economic logic—profiting off global labor, resources, and markets—remains. Also, what connects 20th and 21st Century U.S. foreign policy is the country's desire to spearhead the globe and collaborate more with nations around the world vs. isolationism and staying within the borders. You can see this today with the emergence of Trumpism, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment from the "Make America Great Again" movement and today's rise of American fascism.

Answer 8

That’s a great question — it invites you to think about patterns in U.S. foreign policy across a century of dramatic change.

Here’s a clear comparison between the first part of the 20th century (1900–1950) and the first part of the 21st century (2000–2020), highlighting their common points:

1. Global Leadership and Intervention

1. Both periods saw the United States playing an increasingly active role in world affairs.
2. Early 20th century: The U.S. moved from isolationism to global involvement — entering World War I (1917) and World War II (1941) and emerging as a major world power.
3. Early 21st century: The U.S. remained the world’s leading power and intervened abroad (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) to promote security and democracy.
4. ➡️ Common point: In both eras, the U.S. used military and political power to shape global events and protect national interests.

2. Promotion of Democracy and American Values

1. Early 20th century: Presidents like Woodrow Wilson promoted democracy and self-determination (“make the world safe for democracy”).
2. Early 21st century: Leaders such as George W. Bush echoed this in the “War on Terror,” emphasizing democracy promotion in the Middle East.
3. ➡️ Common point: Both eras justified foreign engagement as a moral mission to spread democratic values and freedom.

3. Economic Interests and Global Markets

1. Early 20th century: Expansion of trade, the Open Door Policy in China, and protection of U.S. business abroad.
2. Early 21st century: Globalization, free trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO), and efforts to maintain access to oil and technology markets.
3. ➡️ Common point: Economic interests and securing markets have remained a consistent foundation of U.S. foreign policy.

4. National Security and Fear of Global Threats

1. Early 20th century: The U.S. faced threats from rising militarism (Germany, Japan) and later the spread of communism.
2. Early 21st century: The U.S. confronted terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and rival powers like China and Russia.
3. ➡️ Common point: National security concerns have consistently driven U.S. foreign engagement and defense expansion.

5. Formation and Use of International Alliances

1. Early 20th century: Creation of the League of Nations (though the U.S. didn’t join) and later NATO after WWII.
2. Early 21st century: Continued leadership in NATO, partnerships in the UN, and creation of coalitions in the War on Terror.
3. ➡️ Common point: The U.S. has relied on alliances and international organizations to pursue global stability and influence.

✅ In Summary:

Despite changes in technology, enemies, and global structure, U.S. foreign policy in both centuries shared five core elements:

1. Active global involvement
2. Promotion of democracy and freedom
3. Protection of economic interests
4. Focus on national security threats
5. Reliance on alliances and international influence

Answer 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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.