After You Have Completed Your Readings, Post A Response To U ✓ Solved

After you have completed your readings post a response to on

After you have completed your readings post a response to only ONE of the following questions.

In your opinion, was U.S. policy in Asia and Latin America between from late nineteenth century to 1914 truly isolationist? Discuss and support your response. In your opinion, did America remain neutral in "thought and deed" from 1914 to 1917? Discuss and support your response.

Paper For Above Instructions

The prompt asks us to evaluate whether the United States behaved in an isolationist manner in Asia and Latin America before World War I or whether its actions betrayed an inclination toward intervention and influence. I will address the first question: Was U.S. policy in Asia and Latin America between the late nineteenth century and 1914 truly isolationist? I argue that the period was characterized not by a clean, principled withdrawal from global affairs, but by selective and strategic engagement that reflected rising imperial ambitions, economic interests, and a growing willingness to use force or coercive diplomacy to secure national interests. In short, the label isolationist is overstated for this era; U.S. foreign policy displayed pragmatic engagement that anticipated later, more explicit forms of intervention.

To ground this assessment, it helps to consider how American policymakers framed their aims and how those aims translated into concrete actions. In Asia, the Open Door Policy—articulated in the Open Door Notes of 1899–1900—sought to preserve equal trading opportunities for foreign powers in China and to safeguard American commerce without formal colonial control. While the policy claimed to promote non-discrimination among foreign powers, it was in practice a tool to secure American access and influence within a rapidly changing Chinese market. In that respect, the policy was less about avoiding entanglements and more about ensuring favorable conditions for American economic power (Barrett, 1900; Britannica Open Door Policy). The Open Door stance was complemented by a series of interventions and adjustments in the region, underscoring a pattern of limited but persistent engagement rather than strict non-involvement. The Boxer Rebellion, for example, tested the extent to which the United States would align with Western powers to preserve a stable trade environment, while still resisting any arrangement that would diminish American influence or threaten trade routes (LaFeber, 2009).

In the Pacific, the Philippines became a focal point for U.S. overseas expansion following the Spanish-American War (1898). The subsequent Philippine-American War and the long administrative entanglements there demonstrated that the United States was active in Asia in ways that resembled imperial or quasi-imperial stewardship rather than disengagement. This involvement in the archipelago, along with the broader attention to Asian markets, indicates a purposeful, if contested, form of presence rather than isolation (LaFeber, 2009; Williams, 1959). The broader arc—where economic interests and strategic concerns coexisted with rhetoric about democracy and self-government—suggests a hybrid approach: not pure isolationism, but not outright empire-building either. The result was a policy posture that sought access and influence without wholesale colonial administration in Asia, a nuanced form of engagement that falls between isolationism and outright expansionism (LaFeber, 2009; Britannica Open Door Policy).

Latin America offers a parallel, but perhaps more explicit, case study. The Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s had established a continental expectation that European powers should stay out of the Western Hemisphere. By the early 20th century, the United States did not abandon this sphere; instead, it embedded it within a more assertive framework. Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904) signaled a willingness to intervene in Latin American politics to stabilize governments and protect U.S. interests when stability was at risk or debt obligations threatened. This was not nonintervention but a proactive strategy to preserve relative order and prevent external influence from undermining American security and economic interests (Britannica, Monroe Doctrine; Britannica, Roosevelt Corollary). Moreover, the so-called Banana Wars of the early 20th century—interventions in countries such as Nicaragua and Haiti—demonstrated that American policy in the Caribbean and Central America often relied on military and economic pressure to secure favorable outcomes. While these actions occurred intermittently and were sometimes defended in terms of stability and antiterror, they constitute a pattern of intervention rather than a policy of genuine isolation (Williams, 1959; LaFeber, 2009).

Importantly, these interventions and policies were not simply the result of a single grand doctrine; they reflected a blend of goals: safeguarding access to resources and markets, protecting strategic routes and ports (notably the canal route in Central America), and shaping the political landscape to minimize rivals’ influence in nearby regions. The era’s diplomacy also relied on economic instruments, summarized in the concept of “dollar diplomacy” under Taft, which used financial leverage to achieve political ends in Latin America and the Caribbean. While sometimes framed as economic leverage rather than outright coercion, the effect was to extend U.S. influence in ways that were incompatible with a strict isolationist stance (Britannica, Dollar Diplomacy). Even supporters of non-intervention or neutral ideals often conceded that economic and security considerations compelled selective involvement—an argument reinforced by the pragmatic tone of policy debates in the era (LaFeber, 2009; Williams, 1959).

Taken together, the Asia and Latin America policies of 1890–1914 reveal a pattern in which the United States sought access, influence, and stability conducive to American interests, often through a mix of diplomacy, selective intervention, and economic power. Isolationism, understood as a deliberate, wholesale withdrawal from international engagement and responsibilities, does not neatly describe this period. Instead, U.S. policymakers pursued a form of pragmatic internationalism: a willingness to exert influence where economic and strategic stakes were high, coupled with attempts to preserve freedom of action in other domains. This nuance is essential for understanding the broader arc of American foreign policy, which oscillates between isolationist rhetoric and interventionist practice depending on context and interests (LaFeber, 2009; Williams, 1959; Barrett, 1900).

In conclusion, the pre–World War I era reveals a United States that was not strictly isolationist in Asia or Latin America. While leaders argued for neutrality or restraint, the actions of the period—Open Door diplomacy in Asia, interventions and financial leverage in Latin America, and strategic moves around the canal—indicate a policy oriented toward influence and security rather than pure noninvolvement. The nuanced record suggests that early American foreign policy blended ideals with instrumental actions, laying groundwork for later debates about American global leadership. If we are to classify this era, it would be more accurate to describe it as practiced engagement with selective restraint rather than genuine isolation.

References

1. LaFeber, Walter. The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad since 1776. 9th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009.
2. LaFeber, Walter. The New Empire: United States Foreign Policy, 1865–1900. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1963.
3. Williams, William Appleman. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1959.
4. Barrett, John. The Open Door Policy in Asia. North American Review, 1900.
5. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Open Door Policy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Open-Door-Policy. Accessed 2024.
6. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Monroe Doctrine. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monroe-Doctrine. Accessed 2024.
7. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dollar Diplomacy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dollar-Diplomacy. Accessed 2024.
8. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Roosevelt Corollary. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roosevelt-Corollary. Accessed 2024.
9. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Panama Canal. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Panama-Canal. Accessed 2024.
10. Pletcher, David M. The Diplomacy of the Open Door Policy. Journal article, 1980s–1990s era scholarship. Provided for context in scholarly discussions of the policy’s rationale and reception.