During the 1890’s the United States saw a surge in its interests abroad. Before this decade, the U.S. government never asserted their influence over foreign nations as strongly and rapidly. It was a turning point in the history of U.S. foreign policy and two scholars, Fareed Zakaria and Peter Trubowitz, provide very different explanations as to why the United States adapted a new foreign policy and acquired territory abroad in the 1890’s. These dissimilar theories use unique units of analysis to examine this period in American history that provide interesting explanations as to why this decade saw such a heightened level of U.S. influence throughout the world. Zakaria’s hypothesis, state-centered realism, better explains why the United States obtained foreign territory in the 1890’s than Trubowitz’s explanation because central decision makers hold the power to act on foreign policy where diverse regional interests throughout the United States merely help shape what the national interest in foreign policy is without holding the power to put it in action. Fareed Zakaria argues in his book From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role that “statesmen will expand the nation’s political interests abroad when they perceive a relative increase in state power, not national power” (Zakaria, 35). Zakaria believes that central decision-makers are responsible for seeing these shifts in relative power of the United States and choose to increase the power of the nation as resources permit. His theory is based on the President and his administration as this central decision-maker and how their views on America’s strength as a state shape foreign policy. Zakaria thinks that the United States acquired these territories becau... ... middle of paper ... ...e importance of central decision-makers and their role in using state power to assert influence abroad when the state is perceived to have the capabilities to do so. Peter Trubowitz also provides a compelling explanation through his evaluation of domestic regional differences shaping foreign policy, but it cannot completely explain why the United States seized foreign territory after years of isolationism. Ultimately, Zakaria provides the more convincing explanation for this sudden surge in American foreign policy during this decade through his analysis of state-centered realism. Works Cited Trubowitz, Peter. Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Zakaria, Fareed. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
In the book, America’s Great War: World War I and the American Experience, Robert H. Zieger discusses the events between 1914 through 1920 forever defined the United States in the Twentieth Century. When conflict broke out in Europe in 1914, the President, Woodrow Wilson, along with the American people wished to remain neutral. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century United States politics was still based on the “isolationism” ideals of the previous century. The United States did not wish to be involved in European politics or world matters. The U.S. goal was to expand trade and commerce throughout the world and protect the borders of North America.
At the turn of the century, and after gaining our independence, the United States land mass more than doubled through the use of purchasing, annexing, and war. However, the foreign policy of our government took a predominately isolationist stand. This was a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. General Washington shaped these values by upholding and encouraging the use of these principles by warning to avoid alliances in his farewell speech. The reasoning behind these actions was that the Republic was a new nation. We did not have the resources or the means to worry about other countries and foreign affairs; our immediate efforts were internal. Our goals that were of primary importance were setting up a democratic government and jump-starting a nation. The United States foreign policy up to and directly preceding the Civil War was mainly Isolationist. After the war, the government helped bring together a nation torn apart by war, helped improved our industrialization, and helped further populate our continent. We were isolationist in foreign affairs, while expanding domestically into the west and into the north through the purchase of Alaska. However, around 1890 the expansionism that had taken place was a far cry from what was about to happen. Expansionism is the nations practice or policy ...
American foreign policy during the 1890s was based on many factors that each acted as an individual justification for our country’s behavior as a whole. Racism, nationalism, commercialism, and humanitarianism each had its own role in the actions America took against other nations.
It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicate the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a summation and conclusion.
From western expansion to foreign imperialism the United States has always been an expansionist country. Early America’s focus was to conquer the natives and obtain western land within North America, but in the latter of America’s history, specifically in the nineteenth and twentieth century, foreign imperialism became the new focus. America’s activity in foreign imperialism was a continuation and departure of the United States’ early expansionism. It was a continuation in terms of manifest destiny, the spread of Christianity, and by the concept of “the city on a hill” and a departure in terms of foreign involvement.
United States expansionism in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century is both a continuation and a departure of past United States expansionism. Expansionism in the United States has occurred for many reasons. Power (from land), religion, economics, and the ideas of imperialism and manifest destiny are just a few reasons why the U.S. decided to expand time and again throughout the course of its 231 year history. Expansionism has evolved throughout the years as the inhabitants of the country have progressed both socially (the Second Great Awakening, the women's suffrage movement, the populist party and the early 19th and 20th century social reformers) and economically (factories, better farms, more jobs, etc.) Expansion changed from non-interference policies to the democratic control of the government as the United States grew in both size and population. Through the use of the documents and events during two major-expansion time periods (1776-1880) and 1880-1914), I will display both the continuation and departure trends of United States expansionism.
It is the belief that America expresses its cultural superiority through its wealth and dominance, and its superiority is measured in military strength. Using the appeal of logos, he states, “to the idea that its power is a sign of God 's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations— to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image” (Fulbright 1). This belief that “the United States has a divinely ordained role to play in the sacred drama of the world history” (Lears 33) is one that Fulbright argues must not succeed. According to “The Arrogance of Power Revisited” by Jackson Lears, Fulbright was concerned that “America was losing its perspective on what was within its capacity to control and what was beyond it”
Hawley, C. (2003). U.S. foreign policy. Encyclopedia of American history: Expansion and reform, 1813-1855, 4, Retrieved August 14, 2008, from Facts on File: American History Online database.
After the civil war, United States took a turn that led them to solidify as the world power. From the late 1800s, as the US began to collect power through Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines, debate arose among historians about American imperialism and its behavior. Historians such as William A. Williams, Arthur Schlesinger, and Stephen Kinzer provides their own vision and how America ought to be through ideas centered around economics, power, and racial superiority.
Like previous American expansion, American imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was motivated by desire for new economic gains and improvements. However, the social justification, diplomatic and military approach and geographical aspect of imperialist expansionism varied greatly from previous American growth. Therefore, American expansionism underwent more change in this period than continuity. For many years, the American boundaries expanded as people moved, at the governments urging, westward for new economic opportunities and later imperialist expansion was no different. While many factors contributed, economic possibility was a driving factor in the expansionist aspirations.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Immediately following the war with Spain, the United States had both the political will to pursue imperial policies and the geopolitical circumstances conducive to doing so. But the way in which these policies would manifest was an open question; was the impulse to actively remake the world in America’s Anglo-Saxon image justified? Hence, there were several models of American imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century. In the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, the United States asserted unwavering political control. In Cuba, and later throughout most of the Caribbean basin, the economic and political domination of customarily sovereign governments became the policy. Ultimately, the United States was able to expand its territory
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
As shown, America’s rapid change as the 19th century came to a close was supported by a various amount of imperialistic beliefs, motives, and incidents that almost jumpstarted the U.S. onto the world stage. Many of these incidents such as the public’s thirst for expansion, the annexation of several faraway lands, and the build-up of U.S. military forces would not have been possible without the Spanish American War. Moreover, the Spanish American war would not have been possible without the American people. Imperialism was a consequence of the American Democratic experiment, giving the people what they want.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.