U.S. Policy Aims At Isolating America

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28158, 22 December 1956, Page 14

U.S. Policy Aims At Isolating America

(By

! KEITH REN SH AIR)

During the last few weeks. American foreign policy has become one of the most significant and. at the same time, one of the least understood factors in the modern world. In fact, there are those who maintained that America has no foreign policy in the classic European fashion —Britain's concern to maintain the Continental balance of power, for example. or France’s wariness of German ambitions.

Yet American foreign policy is basically no different from anybody else s. It seeks to further American interests in the community of nations. Where it differs is in the way American interests are pursued and the nature of America’s long-term diplomatic objectives.

So the first question must be: what does America, as a nation, want out of life? A study of American diplomatic history ever since she achieved nationhood reveals that there is nothing she wants better than to be left alone. In the last century she wanted to develop the vast territories of the West: this century she wishes to enjoy the general prosperity, unsurpassed in human history, that her possession of immense resources has brought her The supreme irony is that in order to safeguard her integrity she has had to play a more and more active part in world politics. While half of her says “Ours is a nice house ours is.” the other worries over whether the neighbours are taking adequate fire precautions. Monroe Doctrine The dilemma permits only two courses of action—the householder either surrounds his home with asbestos or he becomes chief of the fire brigade. Only with reluctance has America chosen the second role, and this lack of relish prompts side effects so important that they themselves become aspects of American foreign policy. But the crucial point is that America wants to be alone and that she only interferes so as to avoid being interfered with.

The United States feeling for selfsufficiency was given classic utterance on December 2, 1823. when President James Monroe proclaimed to Congress the doctrine that was to take his name. In essence the doctrine demanded: “Hands off the Western Hemisphere!” It declared that the American continents were no longer to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European power; that any such extension would be taken as a threat to the United States; that the present colonial set-up would be recognised; and that America would not interfere with the affairs of European Powers. Of special significance for the future was President Monroe’s declaration that: “In the wars of the European Powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part. Nor does it comport with our policy so to do.”

Since then the Monroe Doctrine has been forcefully invoked at some points and all but passed over at others, but if American foreign policy can be said to have a corner-stone, then surelv this is it.

As recently as 1940. for example, the Secretary of State (Mr Cordell Hull) formally warned Germany that the United States would not tolerate any transfer of colonies in the Western Hemisphere from one non-American Power to another.

, Lately this “hands off” attitude has been expanded to combat ideological as well as territorial incursions into the Western Hemisphere—N.A.T.O., 5.E.A.T.0., and other pacts and understandings can all be regarded as expressions of this development. It is worth noting, too. that America looks to its security in the Pacific as much as in the Atlantic.

Reluctant Prima Donna And the basic reason for America’s reluctant intervention in Europe is the fact, slowly realised, that Britain can no longer operate as the make-

weight in the balance of power drama.

The Britannica of the last century underwrote America’s intense period of development and was much more influential, in fact, than the formal Monroe Doctrine. To her involvement in the outside world America has brought some peculiarly home-spun notions. Her anti-colonialism is an obvious product of her own early history; her high regard for material resources, and her sharp eye for a dollar is the outcome of her hot-house material development: and her unshakable adherence to international law is a logical extension of her written Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the third trait—the legalistic attitude—that is, in many ways, the least understood, and, at the moment, the most important—President Wilson with his Fourteen Points, President Roosevelt with the. Atlantic Charter, and President Truman’s doctrine of generous foreign aid striving to project into international affairs the sort of codes and laws that govern the citizens of individual countries.

This attempt to reduce all the clashing interests and ambitions of nations to a written, all-embracing formula, to substitute law for diplomacy, is deceptively simple, and can easily beguile in a democracy where public opinion is so important. For public opinion forms itself round the big, easily-seen issues, not round the subtle and complicated ones. In war the legalistic, moral approach can give the United States, when it is finally roused, a terrible self-righteous anger, which insists that the international lawbreakers must be brought, humiliated and stripped, into the dock. “Unconditional surrender,” the Nuremberg trials, are both recent examples. An outraged America, as Britain now well knows, can easily forsake prudence for severity. Yet America, the reluctant prima donna, is big enough for the mantle she must assume. She needs to be told so—gently.—Central Press.