Developments over the past year have led to serious, widespread concern that the world could be returning to a more isolationist stance. It is perhaps the greatest threat ever levelled at the post-war globalization mo...Developments over the past year have led to serious, widespread concern that the world could be returning to a more isolationist stance. It is perhaps the greatest threat ever levelled at the post-war globalization movement and all of its supporting architecture. This paper argues that due to the unusual nature of the last business cycle, the general public has become impatient with the existing economic and in particular, international trade architecture. It also points out that its typical defenders are unsure of how to do so. In response, what is suggested is that logic puts definite limits on how much change is actually likely to occur, and if so, which strategic responses are most appropriate.展开更多
Isolationism and expansionism are two themes of American diplomacy. From the beginning of the state’s history, isolationism and expansionism have manifested themselves as two policy imperatives in American diplomacy....Isolationism and expansionism are two themes of American diplomacy. From the beginning of the state’s history, isolationism and expansionism have manifested themselves as two policy imperatives in American diplomacy. On the surface, isolationism and expansionism represent contradictory attitudes and assumptions about America’s proper relationship with the outside world: isolationism advocates diplomatic and military non-entanglement in world affairs; expansionism urges active involvement in external affairs. But in a deeper sense, both isolationism and expansionism are manifestations of American sense of mission, the belief that the US has a special role to perform for all nations in the world. Isolationism is a passive approach to accomplish that mission: it emphasizes the exemplary nature of their country. Expansionism stresses the need for active involvement to achieve that mission; thus, is an active approach to American mission.展开更多
文摘Developments over the past year have led to serious, widespread concern that the world could be returning to a more isolationist stance. It is perhaps the greatest threat ever levelled at the post-war globalization movement and all of its supporting architecture. This paper argues that due to the unusual nature of the last business cycle, the general public has become impatient with the existing economic and in particular, international trade architecture. It also points out that its typical defenders are unsure of how to do so. In response, what is suggested is that logic puts definite limits on how much change is actually likely to occur, and if so, which strategic responses are most appropriate.
文摘Isolationism and expansionism are two themes of American diplomacy. From the beginning of the state’s history, isolationism and expansionism have manifested themselves as two policy imperatives in American diplomacy. On the surface, isolationism and expansionism represent contradictory attitudes and assumptions about America’s proper relationship with the outside world: isolationism advocates diplomatic and military non-entanglement in world affairs; expansionism urges active involvement in external affairs. But in a deeper sense, both isolationism and expansionism are manifestations of American sense of mission, the belief that the US has a special role to perform for all nations in the world. Isolationism is a passive approach to accomplish that mission: it emphasizes the exemplary nature of their country. Expansionism stresses the need for active involvement to achieve that mission; thus, is an active approach to American mission.
