Why an Isolationist foreign policy makes sense

Injustices occur throughout the world and no state is immune from disputes, conflicts and poverty. There are, of course, vastly varying degrees to which people experience those things, but they still exist to some extent in the vast majority of countries that exist. In the context of foreign policy, Isolationism seeks to avoid meddling in the affairs of other countries while focusing on addressing internal issues of its own. I believe this is one of the best approaches to foreign policy in our current framework of knowledge.

The benefits of undertaking an isolationist foreign policy:
* Avoids being drawn into dangerous and undesirable conflicts
* Does not attempt to force its version of morality on foreign states
* Is less prone to infiltration by foreign agents
* Ensures that the interests of the country are held as a priority
* Will not engage in conflicts which could make the country more vulnerable to attack in the future
* Will be viewed as relatively neutral when asked for advice on international issues

Potential problems with undertaking an isolationist foreign policy:
* Might be seen as self-centred or cowardly by other countries
* Cannot expect help from an invading force if unwilling to help other countries in the same situation

I might have missed some, but you get the idea. It's not perfect, but an isolationist foreign policy makes much more sense than utilising policies on the opposite side of the spectrum. Start putting the needs and interests of your own country above the compulsion to fix other countries' problems.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I tend to agree, esp. when our country is in bad shape from being in huge debt and stretched so thin. Then there is all the division and other problems we have as a country right now. Keep our embassies open, but close all but the most strategic military bases in countries that we have the closest cultural ties with (ie. those that share our basic cultural values). Restrict trade where and when needed while building up our ability to provide for our own demand.

Star for you.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I've always agreed with an isolationist foreign policy. It keeps countries from meddling into the affairs of other countries, (like the U.S. meddling in the affairs of the Middle East). Cultures and beliefs are different in many parts of the world. Their beliefs may not conform to ours, but it's the people of that country who need to unite to make a change if the majority want it!

As far as invading countries, if the United Nations was designed (the way it should be) to have in place a contingent force made up of a percentage of every country's military to assemble and fight together any invading force, institute an automatic and immediate across the board sanctions, no country would even think of invading another foreign land. There shouldn't be any voting, it's should be a contractual agreement among all nations no matter what type of government is in power.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Its not "isolationist", its non-interventionist.

Unfortunately some people have been brainwashed with the wrong term even if they understand its meaning.

We should always be friendly to other nations, dialogue, lead by example, trade, travel and exchange ideas.

What we have to stop is the non-stop invading, attacking, overthrowing and bombing.

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

- Thomas Jefferson.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The world's current banking regime prevents isolationist stances. To become isolationist would be to destroy the majority of trade agreements and peace agreements already made over decades.

Would mean the withdraw from NATO and the UN. The US isn't going to give up it's seat on the security council and since it won't do that, then it must participate in the affairs of the world.

Non Interventionist is better IMO. North Korea is basically what a country that promotes isolationism is.

~Tenth

a reply to: gladtobehere

Remember, I did specify "isolationist" in regard to foreign policy alone — not a completely isolationist government. The key problem with the "non-interventionist" approach is that you are still beholden to non-governmental bodies such as Amnesty International from interfering in the affairs of your country. Interfering in the affairs of a foreign state without understanding the actual reasons behind the conflict is problematic. Also, the non-interventionist approach still allows for military bases of one country to be present in foreign lands on the grounds of aiding them with defence.

What we have to stop is the non-stop invading, attacking, overthrowing and bombing.

Agreed. However, there are still non-military means of meddling in the affairs of a foreign country which should also be discouraged. You ought not attempt to spread your version of morality on a region with a different history, culture, social norms and ideological outlook than your own.

What we have to stop is the non-stop invading, attacking, overthrowing and bombing

Of course, I have always supported non-interventionism, at least in most situations, but we've been indoctrinated to believe that it's bad. Of course true isolationism, without trade or travel or relations between countries would be bad, but militarily we should cut way back.

Isolation is too late and impossible. The Elite will try anyway to make your country open up just like China in the past.

Either through drugs(CIA) or invasion. Africa tried, it go invaded. Middle East tried. Americans interfered. China tried. The West kept going at her. One way to end it, is to destroy the elites who are planning to get your army to interfere. Even Russia has tried in the past. Infiltration came and took it over which led to Soviet Union rising out.

They'll make any excuses to get the army go into others countries and block their borders.

A isolationist or non-interventionist policy for the US would be a bad thing from both an economic and security perspective. The world is has less people under arms than ever. This is because the idea invading and annexing a nation is an alien concept with US foreign policy backed by the power of the US military. You take the US out of the equation what happens?

1. Global conventional arms race. Without the US backing of it treaties with neatly 100 nations those nations will suddenly feel vulnerable and begin to arm up. That in turn will cause other nations in those regions to also begin military expansions. You would see most of the world turned into an armed camp.

2. US would need to expand military. First lets start with the myth that a large percentage of US forces are in other countries. The are not. You will find at least 80% of our active forces within in US territory, even during the peak of Iraq and Afghanistan 75% of our forces were within US territory. So no money will be saved by "bringing home the troops" Now after the global arms race we are left with nations that have much much larger Armies, Air Forces and Navies around the world. And since the US will now only be fighting wars on its territory later instead of earlier when threats are smaller in somebody else s territory the US military will need to expand to keep up with the new World.

3. Global Nuclear arms race. Without the US nuclear umbrella protecting most of the World dozens of nations would go nuclear nearly over night. Within a couple decades most of Asia, Europe, Mid East and South America would be filled with nuclear powers. And that is the ultimate nightmare fore the US.

4. Dancing to somebody else s tune. With the world dominated by other powers would control key supply lines, resources, and trade the US could be required to do so things to maintain certain vital resources like oil or thing like the 17 critical minerals that the US 100% dependent on other nations for. Say nations tell us whom we can have foreign ties to, or what laws we need to change to fit their morals etc. We push democracy and human rights on other nations, what would the new world powers push on us? End region? Socialism? Sharia law? Who knows?

5. Fighting big wars on out soil instead of small wars on other people. Something we learned from WW1 and WW2 is when the US is not involved early things will continue to spin out of control and what was once a problem that could have been solved with a smaller conflict earlier ends up sucking you into a big conflict later.

The world without the US policing it would quickly become a very dangerous one for everybody.