Variations of United States Diplomatic History Scott Abel, Essay 1, Clymer Within the historiography of U.S.

diplomacy, there exist four main thematic paradigms of historical thought that exemplify various trends depending on the era of which they arose. The historiography represented the overall changing thought processes dictated by the eras of their origin and other factors such as location. The earlier approaches are the use of a Eurocentric version of American diplomacy that traces the line of American diplomatic thought from the dialectic of the Enlightenments pacific ideals and the traditional European state system. Another approach focuses on the enhancement of national security as the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Of the two more recent schools of thought, one focuses on the importance of economic issues such as finding new markets for goods, while the other focuses on the importance of culture as a determinant for the outcome of U.S. diplomatic history. The Eurocentric interpretation of U.S. foreign policy places the methods of American diplomats as originating in European diplomatic theory and practice. Felix Gilbert in To the Farewell Address examines the impact of European legal, diplomatic, and political thinking during the Enlightenment as a methodology for the newly formed United States. Influences from Great Britains foreign policy included an emphasis on the development and protection of maritime power and commerce, along with maintaining the balance of power in Europe and the increased importance of popular opinion in foreign affairs during the early period of American foreign policy.1 Early American foreign policy philosophy included the hopeful ideals of European

Gilbert Felix, To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American Foreign Policy , (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 23, 26.

philosophers that included both elements of international idealism and isolationism by using commerce to spread the ideals of liberty, while avoiding political entanglements during the early years of the republic. However, keeping away from European political connections was incompatible with the desire for free commerce, but the two concepts of pure internationalism and isolationism were ultimately impossible ideals and so the contrast of the ideals were ignorable.2 Americans found the notions of diplomacy for the sake of peace of interest to them, which originated in France as a new methodology.3 European ideology impacted the thinking of Americans in the way they wished to form foreign policy. European pragmatism also impacted American diplomacy during the early years of the republic. During the American Revolution the United States adapted to the norms of European diplomacy when necessary as in the alliance between the United States and France, which included the traditional language of European diplomacy. The United States adopted to the ways of European diplomacy as means for obtaining structure and ultimately for surival.4 American politicians and diplomats adopted notions of national interest in calculating their foreign policies as in the prominent European theory at the time, but also interwove their ideals for the formation of foreign policy.5 Gilberts intrepretation focuses on the importance of European foreign affairs theory and practice in Europes capitals as it impacted the formation of American policies and ideologies. The process of becoming of the United States becoming isolationist in part resulted from the adaptation of internationalist idealism developed during the

2 3

Felix, To the Farewell Address, 72-75. Felix, To the Farewell Address, 60-62. 4 Felix, To the Farewell Address, 86-89. 5 Felix, To the Farewell Address, 95, 136.

Enlightenment. Isolationism embodied international idealism because in its emphasis on moving diplomacy away from being intruments of warfare and power politics of kings and princes to a means to preserve peace itself. The philosophes disliked the old diplomacy that emphasized balance of power theory employed by European states because of its violence and futility. The system failed in the establishment of friendly relations between countries as treaties and alliances were insufficient to make peace. Defensive alliances exacerbated circumstances because there were for offensive purposes, while diplomacy in general was often secret and filled with deceit. The problem was the system itself with monarchs acting irrationally with their wars and conquests and therefore Europe needed a new political system based on reason.6 Philosophes and reformers desired a new reason-based political and diplomatic system removed from the old monarchies that emphasized an idealist desire for peace. American foreign policy philosophy combined both internationalism and idealism, according to Gilbert, by using commerce and diplomacy to spread republican and Enlightenment ideals abroad. Part of American isolationist thought began with the work of Thomas Paine who conceived the idea that the rest of the world was too corrupt for the blessings of liberty because of the various systems of governance and that the continental divide between America and Europe could help the United States stay out of the latters incessant wars. Many Americans instead believed that a new era of liberty was in the making in Europe by means of American diplomacy and commerce.7 The Model Treaty of 1776 with France that established diplomatic relations and commerce

6 7

Felix, To the Farewell Address, 60-62. Felix, To the Farewell Address, 42-43, 55-6.

embodied such ideals.8 Such idealistic and internationalist thought embodied the hopeful notion that Americans could spread liberty, not by war and subversion, but by commerce and contact. Gilbert marked Washingtons Farewell Address as a turning point in American politics that moved the United States toward a more isolationist policy that avoiding intervening militarily in Europe for more than a century. Washingtons influential political testament warned against military alliances with Europe, which worked well because of the political and economic changes of industrialization and nationalism in Europe. American interests, as judged by Alexander Hamilton, meant avoiding conflict with European powers and maintaining peace.9 Hamilton based his isolationist foreign policy philosophy on the concept of the states interest as the United States would be injured involving itself in Europes balance of power struggle and that its ought to focus on its own continent instead.10 Washingtons Farewell Address embodied those notions in an idealistic manner that appealled to that appealled to the general will of the people, along with legitimizing American foreign policy and therefore democratic governance. Gilbert emphasized the combination of both idealism and realism as critical for the creation of great historical moments.11 The United States derived the basis for its foreign policies for over a century based on the concept of isolationism from the military and political systems of Europe from a combination of political necessity and idealism. Gilbert employed chapter titles in his work as a means to emphasize the transition in British North America to a new political system. To the Farwell Address examined the

8 9

Felix, To the Farewell Address, 84. Felix, To the Farewell Address, 135. 10 Felix, To the Farewell Address, 114. 11 Felix, To the Farewell Address, 136.

beginnings of the colonies with the importation of isolationist ideas from England to make the primordial ideology of the British American colonies. After the Declaration of Independence, the United States drew its policies from the ideals of the Enlightenment while developing its foreign affairs bureaucracy from European methods and establishing the importance of national interests. In chapter Insula Fortunata or the Fortunate Islands, Gilbert emphasized the unique position British America was in to follow the ideals of the Enlightenment because of its relatively independent political status and distance from Europe. In Novus Ordo Seculorum or New Order of the Ages, Gilbert examined the emergence of the new republic of the United States and its impact abroad and vice versa with its alliance with France. Ratio Status or State System explained the development of the new foreign affairs bureaucracy in the United States and the movement toward nonentanglement in Europe as foreing policy. 12 The words in Latin emphasized the overall political transition that in time shook the European political system to its core. Another school of thought focuses on the importance of national security to the formation of foreign policy and the protection of the United States from harm. George Kennan, an American diplomat, employed the aforementioned paradigm in American Diplomacy to establish the rational behind the radical changes in foreign policy over a roughly fifty year period from 1898 to 1950. Kennan saw that the margin for American security was far greater in 1900 with Great Britains friendship. He argued that the cause of war was an amalgamation of multiple factors such as fear, jealously, and politics rather

12

Felix, To the Farewell Address, vii; Google Translate, http://translate.google.com/#la/en/insula%20fortunata%0Anovus%20ordo%20seculorum%0Aratio%20stat us.

than just economics.13 Kennan employs a pragmatic approach to writing history like his desired foreign policy that lessens focus on morality and legality. Instead he focuses on the practical implications of history and how policymakers ought to adapt to events based on a historical understanding.14 The national security approach to diplomatic history focuses on the importance of protecting the nation from foreign threats while avoiding excessive focus on legalistic and moralistic thinking. Kennans emphasis on pragmatism in foreign policy became evident in his critique of the Spanish-American War of 1898. The aforementioned war was not fought because of a legitimate national security threat or national interest, but the global political situation at the time afforded American policymakers the chance to make mistakes. The policymakers at the time were not thoughtful enough in forming policy and military strategy as politics and popular will dictated policy more so than national interest. The planning of the war was inadequate as only a few people even really looked at the strategy rather than a competent governing body.15 The United States accomplished its military objectives during the conflict, but the overall policies were poorly formed and deliberated. Domestic and international policy of the United States unnecessarily exacerbated tensions in East Asia through the blatant racism of American laws according to Kennan. For example, the creation of laws that mistreated Japanese and other Asian immigrants to the United States, along with those of Asian descent made foreign policy with East Asian nations, especially Japan, more difficult.16 General American attitudes toward the

13 14

George Kennan, American Diplomacy, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 3-6, 20. Kennan, American Diplomacy, 54, 55. 15 Kennan, American Diplomacy, 8, 19-20. 16 Kennan, American Diplomacy, 49.

Chinese were often disrespectful during the first half of the 20th century. Kennan found such patronizing attitudes disrespectful and damaging to the long-term interests of the United States. He suggested the United States cease moralistic and legalistic judgments of other countries domestic institutions while acting on national interest would be less offensive to foreign nations sensibilities.17 Kennan argued that the introduction of particular laws at the national and state level, along with particular moralistic sentiments toward other peoples and governments greatly reduced the capacity of U.S. officials to conduct successful foreign policy. The third major intrepretation of US foreign policy includes a heavy focus on the importance of economics with a particular attention toward the opening of foreign markets to American consumers and industries. William Appleman Williams established what became the Wisconsin School that emphasized the importance of capturing markets in U.S. foreign policy.18 Williams focuses the economic aspect of US foreign relations, which often contradicted ideals of self-determination and democracy in foreign nations. Furthermore, US foreign policy regarding economics created opponents to the United States and economic independence impossible for nations inside Americas economic orbit such as Cuba in the first half of the 20th century.19 The Open Door Policy based on open markets in foreign countries ultimately failed according to Williams because of its failure in creating an initiated or sustained period of economic growth in a manner that more evenly distributed wealth and exacerbated societal conflict.20 The Wisconsin School and its broader foreign policy paradigm focuses mainly on the economic motives,
17 18

Kennan, American Diplomacy, 53-54. George Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 334. 19 William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, (New York: Norton, 1972), 2-5. 20 Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 291.

with a particular focus on opening new markets for trade, of the United States in its relations with foreign countries. Williams established that American foreign policy in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century sought to use expansion through trade and conquest as a means to keep the American economy functioning. Much of American society, such as manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and farmers held the consensus that they needed new export markets for their goods.21 According to Williams, the Weltanschauung or conception of the world of American leaders in the 1890s based their worldview on economics as the means for political and societal success. McKinley, for example, believed that expanding overseas territorially as a means to avert economic depressions.22 Williams argued that aside from imperialis and anti-imperialists that there were also opponents of colonialism but advocates of the Open Door Policy that would allow the United States to express its economic power, but the political power of Europe with its empires prevented the implementation of such a policy.23 The Open Door Policy of open markets throughout the world included a wide variety of interest groups because it offered the benefits of foreign trade without the heavy cost of colonialism. A more recent turn in historiographical trends include the emphasis on culture as an important factor in analysis of American foreign policy. Andrew Rotter views culture as an important means of understanding history as inspired by Clifford Geertz.24 Rotter argues that U.S. diplomatic officials viewed cultural differences as preventing a closer

21 22

Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 30. Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 37-38. 23 Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 43-46. 24 Andrew J. Rotter, Comrades at Odds: The United States and India, 1947-1964, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), xv-xvi.

relationship between the United States and India.25 He examined cultural differences thematically by dividing the chapters by strategy, economics, governance, gender, religion, and social status.26 According to Rotter, the Indian national pattern of governance was the family, which also was the center of an Indians loyalty.27 The United States on the other hand was more resistant to the concept of a patriarchal system of governance since its founding as it revolted against the king or Royal Father.28 Cultural differences on issues such as governance made closer relations between the United States and India in the postwar years more difficult. Rotter explains that the cultural differences between the United States and India, such as race, religion, social systems were difficult to close in the postwar era. Rotter argues that the white people of the U.S. State Department were less sensitive in matters of race toward Indians and thought them as innately different. To Indians, colonialism was racism and the United States supported colonial regimes during the postwar period and therefore favored whites over people of color.29 In regard to religions, the similarities of Christianity and Islam in comparison to Hinduism drove the countries apart because the United States saw Pakistan, a Muslim-dominated country as a more reliable partner because of similar religious concepts of good versus evil rather than the more flexible religious dogma of Hinduism.30 Indias caste system drew criticism from the United States because of it rigid hierarchy and lack of social mobility. Nehru found working with foreigners who did not criticize Indias caste system and broader social

25 26

Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 16. Rotter, Comrades at Odds, vii. 27 Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 119-120. 28 Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 122-124. 29 Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 154-155. 30 Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 246-247.

structure easier to work with.31 Issues of race, religion, and social structure inhibited a stronger relationship between the United States and India. Rotter also examined the issue of gender in the relations between the United States and India as an issue that drove apart the two countries. American officials looked at Indian men as being effeminate, whereas the Indians looked at Americans as violent cowboys and gangsters. Americans tended to look at Indian women are ruthless and emasculating, while Indians looked at American women as socially too confident and aggressive.32 Such opinions affected foreign policy because the United States viewed Indians as passive and even servile, which apparent Indian non-confrontation with communist countries reinforced during the Cold War.33 Gandhis attitude involving nonviolence challenged Western views of masculinity because it detached courage from aggressiveness. Such perceptions played into Indians views of Westerners as aggressive.34 According to Rotter, differences in gender made diplomatic relations during the early Cold War more difficult between the United States and India. George Herring adapted a cultural paradigm for a significant part of his investigation of U.S. foreign policy with Americas belief in destiny, principles of freedom of the seas, and an element of religious fervor. Americans tendencies toward unilateralism, parochialism, and suspicion of international organizations created problems for themselves.35 For example, the United States especially in the 1890s wanted the Native Americans to be civilized, English speaking, and Christian as to assimilate them into American society, which Herring connects to the larger attempt by Americans to
31 32

Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 250-252, 277. Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 191. 33 Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 193. 34 Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 199. 35 Herring, From Colony to Superpower, 2-7.

10

form an overseas empire during that period.36 Building an empire during the 1890s became a part of Americans destiny with the American economy leading the way to spread its values, customs, and art to other lands.37 Cultural studies influence diplomatic history by clarifying ideologies and thought processes of American officials and of the general public. Herrings examination used cultural values as a means to understand why the United States took particular policy actions throughout its history. Four main themes are prevalent throughout U.S. diplomatic history: Eurocentric traditionalism that emphasizes Americas European influences, national security that focuses on policymaking implemented to protect the United States, an economic emphasis that focuses on trade, and the importance of culture to the formation of policy. Perhaps no particular paradigm may claim a deterministic monopoly as an explanation for U.S. foreign affairs throughout American history, but rather the combination of the four allow for an effective understanding of U.S. foreign policy.

36 37

Herring, From Colony to Superpower, 269-270. Herring, From Colony to Superpower, 299, 340-341.

11