Talk:Isolationism

Improved.
I added a couple of sources to this article. I redid the introduction based on a reliable, relatively non-controversial source: World Book. I also added a quote from George Washington's Farewell Address in an attempt to start a rewrite of this section.--TGregory (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo-isolationism
In the Face the Nation interview with Ron Paul (lots of Youtube videos of it for those who missed it), he referred to Neo-isolationism and I was wondering if it was notable enough to be included here?

I know he definitely didn't invent the term as searches turn up lots of other places it was used except there's no wikipedia article on neo-isolationism and if you heard how he described it, it does fit in with this article.

--Trailing (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

what?
How is this part of a series on discrimination? That's idiotic. News to you: ALL countries are isolationists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.37 (talk) 16:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

This article should be completely rewritten, as "Isolationism" was (and is) a pejorative smear word that has made its way into common usage. An article on "non-interventionism" would contain most of what is included in this article, whereas an Isolationism article should deal with that term exclusively.

To call Jefferson's sentiments "Isolationist" are especially absurd, seeing as he calls for peaceful exchange between nations (rather than hostile isolation).

Paul 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, Paul. I've rewritten the non-interventionism article, and intend to move the examples of "isolationism" in  this article to the non-interventionism article, and to replace the term "isolationism" with "non-interventionism" where appropriate. Hogeye 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * isolationism as its used is mostly a smear world, but it wasn't always, like stated in the comment below, it was sometimes a stated policy, 'splendid isolation' was a conscious policy decision in great britain. see my last entry in the discussion page for comments on this. Brianshapiro

Would anybody object to a section for british isolationism? "splendid isolation" from the conflicts and alliances of the european continent until the massive strength of germany forced britain into alliance with the french and russians in order to retain the balance of power. SRP 15:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eek
Needs some work, eh. Isolationism in China = See China? Also, "Britain isolated herself within the Empire" is a contradiction-in-terms. You're not exactly isolated when you're administering to a quarter of the planet. Marskell 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

'British Isolationism'
This section is plain wrong. For most of the 20th century Britain *did not* isolate herself from the Continent. During the Edwardian era Britain formed the Entente with France and fought the Great War against Germany. During the 1920s she signed the Locarno treaty with France and Germany. During the 1930s she actively appeased Germany and then reversed this position to fight the Second World War, mostly during the 1940s. In the 1950s Britain negotiated with six other European countries to form EFTA which became official in January 1960. Britain applied twice in the 1960s to join the Common Market, which it eventually did in the 1970s. Britain signed the European Single Act in the 1980s and the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s. - Johnbull 20:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, the policy of Britain in the 19th century was Splendid Isolation
 * Brianshapiro

Pejorative?
I don't think there's any dispute that isolationism was a pejorative term in the WWI era. In a previous version of the article it was claimed that just before WWII "isolationism" was not pejorative. Is there any evidence of this? E.g. Did America Firsters call themselves isolationists? My impression is that the label is generally used only by opponents, but I could be wrong. Hogeye 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Stay objective.
It seems whoever wrote this is not staying objective. When giving examples against, you should also give examples supporting. Else do not tell readers what to consider, as if it requires being said to consider an event or the past. Just say it, don't spray around argumentative statements like "one must consider."

"One must consider..." is where this article goes into an argument. Stay objective, please, or as objectional as possible when describing the failures or faults of "isolationism."

Also, general, sweeping statements like "isolationism has always been a debated topic." Has it ALWAYS?

Could someone please verify how long isolationism stayed in effect in Japan for? Inferno 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectiveness is needed. As are meny citations, and specific numbers. In fact, this article might need a major re-write; though I am probably not the best person to do so, I would bias the article in the other direction. --- Le Blue Dude (Not logged in right now)

The last paragraph in the introduction reads like two people having an edit fight to contradict each other in every sentence. This section needs to be rewritten to remove the opinions and crosstalk. Martinemde (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

North Korea
Wouldn't North Korea be considered isolationist? --LeoNomis 09:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Korea in general has some history of isolationism due in part to being conquered by outsiders on occasion. I think it was called the Hermit kingdom for a time.--T. Anthony 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added some information from the Foreign relations of North Korea page. However, this shows that in fact North Korea is isolated, but not isolationist (according to the definition on this page). It has continued to seek diplomatic relations with many countries...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment
For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Racial isolationism
I think this article is about isolationism as a state policy, not racial isolationism. I would reconsider attaching the "this is part of a series on racial segregation" box in the upper right. If someone wants to create an article titled Isolationism (racial), go ahead, but this article is on isolationism as political policy. ~ Rollo44 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Truman
I would say american isolationism ended with Truman. Participation in the World Wars was seen as something temporary. Quote from Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman: a life (1995): "The principal accomplishment of Harry S. Truman... was to change the foreign policy of the United States, from abstention to participation in the affairs of Europe and the world... the truth is that until 1947, in the midst of Truman's first term, the principal American way with foreign policy was that of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe... that the interests of humankind... lay in nonintervention in, abstention from, the affairs of the Old [World]... Americans of this time deemed participation in the world wars a temporary proposition... President Roosevelt told Stalin at Yalta he did not expect American troops to remain in Europe more than two years." Vints 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-interventionism ended with Roosevelt and Truman, not Wilson. Wilson got reelected with his slogan, "He kept us out of war." But that's besides the point because America has never been an isolationist. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Isolationism in Art/Music and as a Mental State
Isolationism is also a term used in art and music, an example being the Isolationism compilation of ambient music released by Virgin Records in 1994. heqs 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent point - this needs to be addressed in a separate section or under a different term. To ignore isolationism in art and music, as well as the mental state (I believe it is defined in the DSM IV psychiatric handbook) leaves out a huge area of knowledge.

WinkJunior (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

US part of article expanded
I added some to the US section, to 1) expand it. (aka: expanded that more than just Washington thought that isolationism (militarily, at least, but also economically somewhat) was the way to go) And 2) add a section about the US's current position on isolationism.

Hey, what do you think about adding [Mercantilism] under "see also?" Constitutional texan 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Constitutional texan 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed U.S.
I removed the United States as an example of an isolationist country. The United States has never been an isolationist. Even this article explains how non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism. The United States has always openly traded and communicated with foreign nations. These ideals of non-interventionism but open trade and talk with other nations is found in the writings of the Found Fathers and has persisted today (at least the trade and talk part). ~ UBeR (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The United States decided to wash its hands of European wars and reverted to a policy of Isolationism." []. Changes to this article ought to be done then. 83.248.168.231 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. ~ UBeR (talk)

On the US, and problems with this article
To the previous commenter, yes if you view "protectionism"--the belief there should be barriers on trade--like this article does--as the standard for trade relations to be a criteria for isolationism, then the US was isolationist. The US in the 19th century relied heavily on a policy of tariffs, often called "neo-mercantilism", and pushed by Whigs like Henry Clay, and these policies lasted into WWII (Smoot-Hawley). It was only in the aftermath of WWII that the US looked to move towards free trade policies. And even in so much as it did, real free trade agreements didn't start until the 1970s.

The United States industrial revolution was built on protectionist policies. See American School. For a lot of reasons, I think it would be accurate to call the US in the 19th century isolationist.

But not because it was protectionist, or because it was non-interventionist, or both:

This drives at the major problem of this article.

--'Protectionism' could mean any degree of trade barriers, from 5% tariff rates based on labor and environmental and other standards; to massive quotas and governmental regulation of what goes in and out.

--'Non-interventionism' could mean any degree of non-involvement, from lack of participation in international 'policing' activities through international bodies like the UN, to refusal to participate in any alliances.

So, a government can be both protectionist and non-interventionist, in the less extreme ways, and not be isolationist.

Isolationism is not about either protectionism or non-interventionism or a combination of both; its about a political world view which intentionally tries to seek to isolate a country from the problems of the rest of the world. The United States in the 19th century did this, by both avoiding alliances with Europe and warning Europe through the Monroe Doctrine to stay away from the Americas. Foreign trade was heavily managed, because the US, being a burgeoning country with a lot of resources, never really needed to rely on it. 19th century Britain was isolationist in policy towards the rest of the world, because it could survive through management of colonies it already owned. One could say Britains participation in these colonies was anti-isolationist, but really Britain saw it as Britain managing its own affairs. See Splendid Isolation.

Isolationism usually also only refers to the diplomatic stance, and not the stance on trade. Isolationism does mean an isolation from the political concerns of other nations, not economic concerns.

'Isolationism' as a term often is, and is as defined in this article, merely a derisive slur against a populist viewpoint which supports both protective tariffs and withdrawl from international policing activities. But neither of these things together add up to isolationism, if it means keeping alliances and diplomatic commitments, and limiting tariffs to purposes of interest while trying to open trade relations worldwide.

So what you have in the two-part definition in the opening of this article is not an objective account of what isolationism has been historically, but what opponents of populism use to attack populist candidates. In fact, even though libertarians don't fit the real meaning of the term historically, they are better examples of it than populists. (Taking their stance towards diplomacy only)

Brianshapiro

Possible Edits

 * This page seems to be going in the right direction but it has some issues with neutrality and sourcing. In the introduction, there is a large quote which could be paraphrased and Cuba could probably be taken off the list of isolationist nations, especially since with the normalization of US-Cuban relations. There may also be some neutrality issues in portraying nations that engage in isolationist foreign policies as non-Western and/or at a lower living condition. The Bhutan subsection could use some more sourced information and would make a good example of how some nations use isolationism to preserve culture (it should be noted that isolationism can come in different forms i.e. cultural, economic, etc.). The second paragraph in the China section also could be sourced since there is a lot of information used without any citation. Finally, the phrase "a tragic fact that separated families and loved ones from each other over the course of many years" under the Soviet Union subsection could be rephrased since the current wording carries an opinionated feel. Perhaps the word "tragic" could be removed. Thank you for reading these suggested edits. --Nolanrose (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Albania
Albania under communism ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk • contribs) 09:11, June 23, 2008

Tibet
Before the Chinese take-over — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk • contribs) 09:11, June 23, 2008

Butan
?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk • contribs) 09:11, June 23, 2008

Myanmar
?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk • contribs) 09:11, June 23, 2008

Definition?
There seem to be two definitions at work in this article: The USSR was clearly not isolationist according to the dictionary definition.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The definition in the lead: "the foreign policy position that a nation's interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance". This is the dictionary definition.
 * 2) An invented definition implied in the article of any policy that leads to a country's isolation.

To back up the dictionary definition: I intend to remove any examples which do not fit this definition.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
 * a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.
 * the political principle or practice of showing interest only in your own country and not being involved in international activities
 * A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.
 * A policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

I have removed the following: Because of their social and political systems, these countries were isolated to some extent, particularly from the Western world, but they were not isolationist. No sources provided in the article say that they were.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Albania: The People's Socialist Republic of Albania was allied with China. It was a member of the Warsaw Pact until 1968. It was a member of the UN.
 * China: Mao's China was barred from the UN, though it attempted to join. China had relations with the Eastern Bloc countries, particularly Albania. China had close relations with Indonesia, Vietnam, and Cambodia at various times. China fought alongside North Korea in the Korean War.
 * North Korea: I quote what I recently inserted in the article: North Korea is often described as the "Hermit kingdom" that is completely isolated from the rest of the world. In truth, North Korea maintains diplomatic relations with many countries. During the Cold War, North Korea operated as a maverick member of the Communist Bloc, having close relations with East Germany, Yugoslavia, and Romania. In 1975, it joined the Non-Aligned Movement. In same period, North Korea began to play a part in the global radical movement, forging ties with such diverse groups as the Black Panther Party of the USA, the Workers Party of Ireland, and the African National Congress. As it emphasized its independence, North Korea began to promote the doctrine of Juche ("self-reliance") as an alternative to orthodox Marxism-Leninism and as a model for developing countries to follow. When the Soviet Bloc collapsed from 1989-1990, North Korea became more isolated. However, it continues to have strong relations with remaining Communist outposts such as Cuba.
 * Soviet Union: The USSR was a member of the UN Security Council, COMECON, and the Warsaw Pact. It had good relations with other Communist countries, such as Vietnam and Cuba, and with developing countries (for example, the Arab countries). Through Comintern and Cominform, it fostered relations with Communist Parties around the world.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isolationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808082014/http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/pdf/gac/0211power.pdf to http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/pdf/gac/0211power.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Planned revisions/edits (7/5/2020)
1. I want to improve the introductory sentence to better grasp the essence of what isolationism entails. Currently the introductory sentence is ambiguous and difficult to understand for the neutral viewer of the page.

2. I aim to address motivations behind isolationism. Isolationism is a broad term and understanding it requires a deeper understanding of motivations behind isolationism. By using examples, sources, and research, I will be able to properly describe the pattern we see that leads to isolationism. This way, the article will ensure impartiality while touching upon the motivations that will enhance our understanding of the topic.

3. Entirely rework the section 'isolationism by country'. This section is weak and lacks any application of a theoretical framework. I want to look at North Korea, Russia, Iran, and the United States and use each of these examples to elaborate on the theoretical framework and also expand on motivations behind isolationism.

4. I want to rework the structure of the article. Currently there is no coherent structure to the article and the way it is laid out seems random. I will structure the article as follows:

- Introduction - Characteristics - History - Examples - Variations of Isolationism - References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uva honeybadger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to your question above
Do you mean that the article's theoretical framework could be improved with reference to Iran's benefiting from a reduction in trade imbalance debt? I think yes. (Thus the theoretical framework on the Wikipedia page can reference Cialdini's book "Influence" with respect to the "reciprocity rule.") However, non-cash iterative gestures only benefit isolated countries after they fully open up and start trading again. So I'm not sure that should appear in the article about isolationism. That may make sense in a new article about trade peace. However, if Iran were to call for peace talks for Palestinians (a group they very much want to experience peace, and who they very much want to experience the economic progress that can result from such talks), that may be more relevant because calling for peace talks could result in a full opening up for Iran to the global economy, with bipartisan US, European & Israeli support for JCPOA. That level of unanimous support would be a new enjoyable experience for Iran. That's much more important and relevant to the article. 2600:1700:FB80:AB0:447:CB06:FE21:C631 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Opportunity for Iran
There would be great prestige in leading on peace.

A public call by Iranian leadership for Palestinian peace talks would immediately enhance the Iranian government’s prestige both within the area and globally.

(Imagine the best public relations for the Iranian government in the history of the country.)

The Iranian people care about peace and want peace for the Palestinian people. The Supreme Leader of Iran loves peace. It’s wonderful to quietly hope to one’s self for peace, however much more beneficial to speak up and call for peace talks.

Remember, both political parties in the United States, Europe & Israel support peace for the Palestinians, and hope to invest tens of billions of dollars to improve their standard of living. There is also a multi hundred billion dollar opportunity for the Palestinians to participate in the global economy over the next decade.

But more important to Iran, and more immediately, both political parties in the United States, Europe & Israel would support Iran’s prosperity - and full participation in the global economy. (JCPOA.) Why not let the Iranian people enjoy the trillion dollar opportunity over a decade (perhaps much more)?

Russia might benefit tremendously too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB80:AB0:315B:5E48:EB2D:B16B (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

All it takes is words to achieve this - a couple of spoken phrases by the Supreme Leader calling for talks, and then some phenomenal local and foreign language newspaper reporting.

Wish you peace & success.2600:1700:FB80:AB0:75F2:D437:E11:DCF6 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Religion, peace & isolationism
Is Islam humanity’s most peaceful religion?

Is there great significance to the title Islam (and slam)?

Is peace what Islam is really about?

Wish you peace and success.2600:1700:FB80:AB0:6876:28B:823C:115E (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A+
China

“China, as a good friend, partner and brother of the Palestinian people, is a staunch supporter of Palestine-Israel PEACE.”

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-28/President-Xi-Jinping-pledges-support-to-Palestine-LYNjj9HXZS/index.html

“ China is ready to work with the international community to push forward the Palestine-Israel PEACE TALKS and strive for an early realization of comprehensive, just and sustainable peace in the Middle East, said the president.”

Russia

“ Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday backed a Palestinian proposal for a Middle East peace conference, saying at the UN that it could be held at ministerial level in spring or summer.

Recalling that Moscow had backed Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas' idea for international talks in early 2021 when he first proposed it in September, Lavrov offered ideas about who could be invited.

"We propose holding an international, ministerial-level meeting in spring-summer 2021," Lavrov told a videoconference UN Security Council meeting about the Middle East.

Participants would include Israel, the Palestinians, the four members of the so-called Middle East diplomatic quartet (Russia, the United Nations, the United States and the European Union), along with four Arab states — Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, Lavrov said.”

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/26/russia-suggests-middle-east-peace-conference-a72739

2600:1700:FB80:AB0:D189:ED30:3B84:56B1 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If not now, when?
Iran has support for improving relations from liberals in the US & Europe.

However, Iran lacks support for improving relations from conservatives in the US & Europe.

Iran also lacks support from Israel.

All it takes is one tweet from the US for Iran to love its relations with the United States, Europe & Israel.

All it takes is one tweet from the US for Iran to love bipartisan support.

The Palestinians may love the possibility that peace can result from peace talks.

If not now, when?

2600:1700:FB80:AB0:ECDD:E35E:F789:9D4D (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)