The costly and bloody World War I left nations around the world in 1930 including those in Asia and Europe beginning to worry about their true positions on the world map. The systems that had been set were inefficient; the League of the world and World courts could not ease tensions and wars among nations. The global economy was yet to stabilize and nations were deep into debts. In Asia, particularly, the Japanese started to invade territories of the neighboring China violating international relations and understanding (Stewart 2). This triggered new fears on the increasing military actions to aggravate the world already exhausted and recovering from the just concluded war. The Russian leader at the time, Mussolini, was also making nationalists calls to his countrymen appearing to be supporting the aggression of the Japanese to break international agreements. In Europe, the case was no different only that the Italians were preoccupied with their economy while the German leaders were in a rush to establish their dictatorial regimes and strengthening their military. These events going on throughout the world during this time made nations to treat each other with suspicion. They presumed each was preparing for war even before it happened and alliances were formed by Germans, Italians and Japanese. The Americans knew it could not watch as they, too, could be affected. This essay is a critical and historical look into US foreign policy and how it brings consensus into Vietnam foreign policy stand by the US.
Though Americans wished to join in persuading global countries to tone down on their hardline positions, it was limited on account of the final address by President Washington to strive to maintain good relations with their neighbors (Stewart 4). They lived in isolation and rarely engaged in the senseless world acrimonies except where there was absolute need. The US departed from its Policy of ‘abstain from acting’ when it was involved in a war to free Cuba from Spain and set an extended empire of itself where it administered its policy. It realized it could not live isolated from the global events. It later joined the World War I by sending its military to help its allies (Stewart 6). It also had debts to be paid by allies it had advanced to during the war. During the 1930’s America continued to pursue isolation in order to guard its citizens from the horrors a war that seemed right on the blink from starting.
The Americans who supported a more vibrant international relations policy where America should be involved in global affairs cited that, for one, America had vital interests in the world which were reasonable, legitimate and peaceful. These interests, they argued, were on the face threatened by Asia and Europe dictators and their policies. These interests needed to be protected by all means including active engagements. They also argued that the dictators of the world were evil people who were mercilessly crashing people’s rights, forcing obedience, transforming their people to slaves and greedily looking to assert their status (Stewart 8). They, thus, were of the opinion they needed to be stopped. The proponents of energetic international relations policy convinced the majority of the masses and American leaders on why they should move from isolation.
The World War II passed and Americas were still divided on its position on international matters, some maintained a return to isolation while others supported active participation of foreign policies. This debate was reignited when The US and the Soviet Union began to treat each other with suspicion over their stand on democracy, capitalism and ideologies. Cold war was birthed from these differences which manifested in events, crises, and confrontations that involved allies of America against those of The Soviet Union (Stewart 12). The Americans, led by the Republicans, reasoned that it was better for American not to remain silent while her interests in the European and African goods, services and markets were threatened from the aggression of the Soviets; they had to take part in protecting them by giving them necessary financial and military aid. It was also agreed that when the evil Soviet Union leaders could not be allowed to spread its oppressive communism in South Korea. It was hence forth agreed that necessity should allow America to change tact when aggrieved. President Truman was vocal in advocating for foreign policy that protected the interests of American.
In summation, this critical look into the foreign policy that America has taken over the decades can be seen to be as a result of its needs and interests of its global friends. The American people have not been forced to adopt a particular stand on international policy for convenience but rather out of specific ideals, commitments and principles that affect their life and nation. The idea to act when necessary and abstain other times may have divided Americans but, in the end, what matters most is its position in the event of aggression and pressure from its global peers. In the case of Vietnam, it can be solved if the opposing sides go back to history and draw from it why America was justified to engage in the war. The decision was not an arbitrary one. The US had interests of national security it had to protect, hence its actions are historically justified.
Works Cited
Stewart, Matthew C., David W. Levy, and Larry Cable. "The Debate Over Vietnam." (1992): 131-133.
