Hubbry Logo
IsolationismIsolationismMain
Open search
Isolationism
Community hub
Isolationism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Isolationism
Isolationism
Isolationism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Isolationism is a term used to refer to a political philosophy advocating a foreign policy that opposes involvement in the political affairs, and especially the wars, of other countries. Thus, isolationism fundamentally advocates neutrality and opposes entanglement in military alliances and mutual defense pacts. In its purest form, isolationism opposes all commitments to foreign countries, including treaties and trade agreements.[1] In the political science lexicon, there is also the term of "non-interventionism", which is sometimes improperly used to replace the concept of "isolationism".[2] "Non-interventionism" is commonly understood as "a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries' internal affairs".[3] "Isolationism" should be interpreted more broadly as "a foreign policy grand strategy of military and political non-interference in international affairs and in the internal affairs of sovereign states, associated with trade and economic protectionism and cultural and religious isolation, as well as with the inability to be in permanent military alliances, with the preservation, however, some opportunities to participate in temporary military alliances that meet the current interests of the state and in permanent international organizations of a non-military nature."[4]

This contrasts with philosophies such as colonialism, expansionism, and liberal internationalism.

Introduction

[edit]

Isolationism has been defined as:

A policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.[5]

By country

[edit]

Albania

[edit]
Main article: People's Socialist Republic of Albania § Self-reliance

Bhutan

[edit]

Before 1999, Bhutan had banned television and the Internet in order to preserve its culture, environment, and identity.[6] Eventually, Jigme Singye Wangchuck lifted the ban on television and the Internet. His son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, was elected Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan, which helped forge the Bhutanese democracy. Bhutan has subsequently undergone a transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy multi-party democracy. The development of Bhutanese democracy has been marked by the active encouragement and participation of the reigning Bhutanese monarchs since the 1950s, beginning with legal reforms, and culminating in the enactment of Bhutan's Constitution.[7]

Tourism in Bhutan was prohibited until 1974. Since then, the country has allowed foreigners to visit, but has tightly controlled tourism in an effort to preserve its natural and cultural heritage. As of 2022, tourists must pay a $200 per day fee on top of other travel expenses such as meals and accommodation. Prior to 2022, visitors were not allowed to travel independently and had to be accompanied by a tour guide.[8] As of 2021, Bhutan does not maintain formal foreign relations with any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, notably including China, its neighbor to the north with which it has a historically tense relationship.[9]

Cambodia

[edit]
Main article: Post-Angkor Period
See also: Khmer Rouge

From 1431 to 1863, the Kingdom of Cambodia enforced an isolationist policy. The policy prohibited foreign contact with most outside countries. When Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge came to power on 17 April 1975 and established Democratic Kampuchea, the urban population of every city, including Phnom Penh, was relocated to the countryside. This was ordered by the Communist Party of Kampuchea and the secret police Santebal, and they then established an infamous prison gulag inside the torture chamber called Tuol Sleng (S-21). Cambodia proceeded to implement the Year Zero policy, hastening isolation from the rest of the world. Ultimately, the authority of the Khmer Rouge and its isolationist policy would collapse in 1978 when the Vietnamese invaded the country and then overthrew Pol Pot on 7 January 1979.

China

[edit]
Main article: Haijin
See also: One China and Political status of Taiwan

After Zheng He's voyages in the 15th century, the foreign policy of the Ming dynasty in China became increasingly isolationist. The Hongwu Emperor was not the first to propose the policy to ban all maritime shipping in 1390.[10] The Qing dynasty that came after the Ming dynasty often continued the Ming dynasty's isolationist policies. Wokou, which literally translates to "Japanese pirates" or "dwarf pirates", were pirates who raided the coastlines of China, Japan, and Korea, and were one of the key primary concerns, although the maritime ban was not without some control.

In the winter of 1757, the Qianlong Emperor declared that—effective the next year—Guangzhou was to be the only Chinese port permitted to foreign traders, beginning the Canton System.[11]

Since the division of the territory following the Chinese Civil War in 1949, China is divided into two regimes with the People's Republic of China solidified control on mainland China while the existing Republic of China was confined to the island of Taiwan as both governments lay claim to each other's sovereignty. While the PRC is recognized by the United Nations, European Union, and the majority of the world's states, the ROC remains diplomatically isolated although 15 states recognize it as "China" with some countries maintaining unofficial diplomatic relations through trade offices.[12][13]

Japan

[edit]
Main article: Sakoku

From 1641 to 1853, the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan enforced a policy called kaikin. The policy prohibited foreign contact with most outside countries. The commonly held idea that Japan was entirely closed, however, is misleading. In fact, Japan maintained limited-scale trade and diplomatic relations with China, Korea, and the Ryukyu Islands, as well as the Dutch Republic as the only Western trading partner of Japan for much of the period.[14][15]

The culture of Japan developed with limited influence from the outside world and had one of the longest stretches of peace in history. During this period, Japan developed thriving cities, castle towns, increasing commodification of agriculture and domestic trade,[16] wage labor, increasing literacy and concomitant print culture,[17] laying the groundwork for modernization even as the shogunate itself grew weak.[18]

Korea

[edit]
See also: Hermit kingdom and Juche

In 1863, Emperor Gojong took the throne of the Joseon Dynasty when he was a child. His father, Regent Heungseon Daewongun, ruled for him until Gojong reached adulthood. During the mid-1860s he was the main proponent of isolationism and the principal instrument of the persecution of both native and foreign Catholics.

Following the division of the peninsula after independence from Japan at the end of World War II, Kim Il Sung inaugurated an isolationist nationalist regime in the North, which would continued by his son and grandson following his death in 1994.[19]

Paraguay

[edit]

In 1814, three years after it gained its independence on May 14, 1811, Paraguay was taken over by the dictator José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia. During his rule which lasted from 1814 until his death in 1840, he closed Paraguay's borders and prohibited trade or any relationship between Paraguay and the outside world. The Spanish settlers who had arrived in Paraguay just before it gained its independence were required to marry old colonists or the native Guaraní in order to create a single Paraguayan people.

Francia had a particular dislike of foreigners, and any foreigners who attempted to enter the country were not allowed to leave for an indefinite period of time. An independent character, he hated European influences and the Catholic Church and in order to try to keep foreigners at bay, he turned church courtyards into artillery parks and turned confession boxes into border sentry posts.[19]

United States

[edit]
Main article: United States non-interventionism § Isolationism between the World Wars

Some scholars, such as Robert J. Art, believe that the United States had an isolationist history, but most other scholars dispute that claim by describing the United States as following a strategy of unilateralism or non-interventionism rather than a strategy of isolationism.[20][21] Robert Art makes his argument in A Grand Strategy for America (2003).[20] Books that have made the argument that the United States followed unilaterism instead of isolationism include Walter A. McDougall's Promised Land, Crusader State (1997), John Lewis Gaddis's Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004), and Bradley F. Podliska's Acting Alone (2010).[22] Both sides claim policy prescriptions from George Washington's Farewell Address as evidence for their argument.[20][21] Bear F. Braumoeller argues that even the best case for isolationism, the United States in the interwar period, has been widely misunderstood and that Americans proved willing to fight as soon as they believed a genuine threat existed.[23] Warren F. Kuehl and Gary B. Ostrower argue:

Events during and after the Revolution related to the treaty of alliance with France, as well as difficulties arising over the neutrality policy pursued during the French revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars, encouraged another perspective. A desire for separateness and unilateral freedom of action merged with national pride and a sense of continental safety to foster the policy of isolation. Although the United States maintained diplomatic relations and economic contacts abroad, it sought to restrict these as narrowly as possible in order to retain its independence. The Department of State continually rejected proposals for joint cooperation, a policy made explicit in the Monroe Doctrine's emphasis on unilateral action. Not until 1863 did an American delegate attend an international conference.[24]

Criticism

[edit]

Isolationism has been criticized for the lack of aiding nations with major troubles. One notable example is that of American isolationism, which Benjamin Schwartz described as a "tragedy" inspired by Puritanism.[25]

Some modern American conservative commentators assert that labeling others as isolationist is used against individuals in a pejorative manner.[26][27]

See also

[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to Isolationism.

Works cited

[edit]
  1. ^ Thomas S. Vontz, "Isolationism." World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia (2013).
  2. ^ Romanov, V. V.; Artyukhov, A. A. (2013). "The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics" (PDF). Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta (in Russian) (3–1). Kirov, Russia: 67. ISSN 1997-4280.
  3. ^ Smith, M. (2010). "The Myth of American Isolationism, Part I: American Leadership and the Cause of Liberty". The Heritage Foundation. Washington D.C.: 2. Archived from the original on 20 March 2017.
  4. ^ Artiukhov, A. A. (2022). "The Conceptual Characteristics of the Notion "Isolationism" at the Current Historical Stage". Meždunarodnyj Naučno-Issledovatel'skij Žurnal [International Research Journal] (in Russian) (8 (122)). Yekaterinburg, Russia: 2. doi:10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54. eISSN 2227-6017. ISSN 1997-4280.
  5. ^ "Neutrality, Political," (2008). International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences; retrieved 2011-09-18
  6. ^ "South Asia :: Bhutan". CIA World Factbook. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  7. ^ O'Brien, Matt (29 August 2010). "Reporter's Notebook from Bhutan: Crashing the Lost Horizon". Inside Bay Area. Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 23 March 2012. Retrieved 18 September 2011.
  8. ^ Yeginsu, Ceylan (5 July 2022). "Famous for Happiness, and Limits on Tourism, Bhutan Will Triple Fees to Visit". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 18 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2023.
  9. ^ Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy. "Bhutan doesn't have diplomatic ties with any of the 5 UNSC permanent members". The Economic Times. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  10. ^ Vo Glahn, Richard. [1996] (1996). Pit of Money: money and monetary policy in China, c. 1000–1700. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-20408-9
  11. ^ Shi Zhihong (2006), "China's Overseas Trade Policy and Its Historical Results: 1522–1840", Intra-Asian Trade and the World Market, Studies in the Modern History of Asia, Abingdon: Routledge, p. 10, ISBN 978-1-134-19408-7
  12. ^ "Taiwan's Growing Diplomatic Isolation".
  13. ^ Chu, Monique (12 September 2001). "Taiwan and the United Nations - Withdrawal in 1971 was an historic turning point". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024.
  14. ^ 400 jaar handel – Four centuries of Japanese–Dutch trade relations: 1609–2009 Archived 2008-01-11 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ^ Ronald P. Toby, State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, (1984) 1991.
  16. ^ Thomas C. Smith, The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan, Stanford Studies in the Civilizations of Eastern Asia, Stanford, Calif., 1959,: Stanford University Press.
  17. ^ Mary Elizabeth Berry, Japan in Print: Information and Nation in the Early Modern Period, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
  18. ^ Albert Craig, Chōshū in the Meiji Restoration, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961; Marius B. Jansen, Sakamoto Ryōma and the Meiji Restoration, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961.
  19. ^ a b Drew (PhD), Chris (30 July 2023). "25 Isolationism Examples (2023)". helpfulprofessor.com. Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  20. ^ a b c Art, Robert J. (2004). A grand strategy for America. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 172–73. ISBN 978-0-8014-8957-0.
  21. ^ a b McDougall, Walter A. (1998). Promised land, crusader state : the American encounter with the world since 1776. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 39–40. ISBN 978-0-395-90132-8.
  22. ^ Podliska, Bradley F. Acting Alone: A Scientific Study of American Hegemony and Unilateral Use-of-Force Decision Making. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010. ISBN 978-0-7391-4251-6
  23. ^ Braumoeller, Bear F. (2010) "The Myth of American Isolationism." Foreign Policy Analysis 6: 349–71.
  24. ^ Warren F. Kuehl and Gary B. Ostrower, "Internationalism" Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy ed. Alexander DeConde (2002) online
  25. ^ Schwartz, Benjamin (Fall 1996). "Review: The Tragedy of American Isolationism". World Policy Journal. 13 (3): 107. JSTOR 40209494. Retrieved 6 December 2020.
  26. ^ Larison, Daniel (30 September 2020). "Getting Rid of the Myth of 'Isolationism'". The American Conservative. Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  27. ^ "Are Republicans Really Turning Back to Isolationism?". American Enterprise Institute - AEI. Retrieved 21 October 2023.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Isolationism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Isolationism is a that advocates a nation's avoidance of enduring strategic commitments, alliances, and political entanglements beyond its immediate or hemisphere, emphasizing instead domestic self-sufficiency, neutrality, and unilateral of action. In practice, it opposes binding multilateral agreements and interventions in distant conflicts, allowing focus on internal development and without mandatory obligations to foreign powers. Historically, isolationism has been most prominently embodied in the United States, where it originated as a foundational principle during the founding era, rooted in geographic advantages and a desire to steer clear of European rivalries. George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address explicitly warned against "permanent alliances" and "entangling" foreign connections, promoting temporary alliances only for commerce, self-defense, or humanitarian purposes, which shaped U.S. policy through the 19th century, including the Monroe Doctrine's hemispheric focus. This approach enabled territorial expansion and economic growth while largely abstaining from wars, though exceptions like the Spanish-American War in 1898 tested its limits. The of the 1920s and 1930s marked isolationism's zenith in the U.S., fueled by disillusionment after World War I's 400,000 casualties and rejection of the League of Nations under presidents like . Congress enacted neutrality laws to prevent entanglement in European affairs, and groups like the mobilized opposition to aid for Britain, reflecting logics such as preserving domestic liberty, social cohesion, and freedom from great-power conflicts. The Japanese in 1941 shattered this stance, propelling the U.S. into global engagement, though a "new isolationism" briefly resurfaced post-1945 against institutions like the and before subsiding amid imperatives. Defining characteristics include leveraging natural barriers for security, prioritizing economic protectionism, and rejecting collective security pacts, often intertwined with ideological commitments to national sovereignty and pacifism. While critics contend it risks emboldening aggressors—as arguably occurred with in —proponents highlight its role in safeguarding resources and averting costly overextensions, as evidenced by the U.S.'s pre-World War II industrial buildup. In contemporary discourse, isolationist sentiments persist in debates over military retrenchment and policies, reflecting cyclical tensions between hemispheric restraint and global .

Definition and Principles

Core Concepts and First-Principles Basis

Isolationism, as a , fundamentally rests on the recognition that a nation's primary is to its own citizens' and prosperity, achieved through avoidance of permanent alliances and non-intervention in distant conflicts unless vital interests are directly threatened. This approach posits that geographic advantages, such as oceans separating major powers like the from Eurasian theaters, enable a of rather than entanglement, minimizing the risks of being drawn into wars not of one's making. From first principles, isolationism aligns with causal realism in , where states pursue self-preservation amid by conserving resources for domestic ends and responding only to proximate threats, as indefinite commitments abroad erode and invite opportunistic adversaries. George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address articulated this by cautioning against "permanent alliances" that could subordinate national decisions to foreign powers, while permitting temporary associations for "extraordinary emergencies" and commercial ties unburdened by political obligations. Empirical observation of European wars, which Washington noted had repeatedly ensnared participants in cycles of debt and devastation, underscored the high costs of ideological or dynastic quarrels irrelevant to American survival. The doctrine further embodies unilateralism, where a state asserts its —such as the under the 1823 —while abstaining from European affairs, thereby deterring colonization without reciprocal guarantees that could compel intervention elsewhere. This framework prioritizes measurable national interests over universalist aspirations, rejecting the notion that moral imperatives justify resource diversion from like and defense. Isolationism thus contrasts with expansionist interventionism by emphasizing restraint's long-term benefits: preserved military readiness, fiscal prudence, and cultural cohesion unmarred by imported animosities. Isolationism appears in varying degrees of stringency, with strict variants advocating total detachment from foreign political, military, and economic commitments to preserve national and avoid entanglements. In its purest form, this entails rejecting treaties, alliances, and even expansive trade agreements, often paired with policies of economic self-sufficiency or to minimize external dependencies. Moderate or selective variants permit limited and cultural exchanges while prohibiting military pacts or interventions, as seen in historical emphases on geographic spheres of influence rather than global involvement. A contemporary distinction arises with "restraint," sometimes mislabeled as isolationism, which favors strategic, interest-based engagements over blanket withdrawal but shares the core aversion to overextension. Isolationism differs from , which narrowly opposes military force abroad but accommodates alliances, , and diplomatic as long as they do not lead to armed commitments. Whereas , as articulated by figures like Senator Robert Taft in the , allowed and cultural outreach, isolationism historically bundled military noninvolvement with protectionist economics and cultural insularity to forestall any foreign influence. Neutrality, by contrast, constitutes a legal and temporary stance during active conflicts, obligating impartiality without favoring one , unlike isolationism's proactive, peacetime against forming entangling relationships that could precipitate war. , an economic tactic employing and quotas to shield domestic industries—such as the U.S. Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 raising duties on over 20,000 imported goods—may overlap with isolationist strategies but targets trade imbalances rather than geopolitical noninvolvement.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Pre-Modern and Ancient Instances

In ancient Greece, Sparta exemplified an isolationist stance through its policy of xenelasia, which barred foreigners from entering or residing within its territory to safeguard the purity of its austere, militaristic society. Attributed to the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus around the 8th century BCE, this measure aimed to prevent cultural corruption and maintain the rigid discipline of Spartan citizens (homoioi), who were trained from childhood for perpetual warfare against helot slaves. Unlike expansionist Athens, Sparta eschewed direct imperial conquest, relying instead on the Peloponnesian League—a loose alliance of city-states—to exert hegemony without extensive entanglement in foreign governance or trade, prioritizing internal stability over external adventures until the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE). This approach preserved Sparta's unique agoge system but contributed to demographic decline and vulnerability to external pressures, culminating in its subjugation by Thebes at Leuctra in 371 BCE. In pre-modern , China's (1368–1644 CE) transitioned from maritime outreach to deliberate seclusion after the seven voyages of (1405–1433 CE), which reached as far as but were abruptly halted by Emperor Xuande in 1433 CE amid fiscal strains and ideological conservatism. The subsequent policy evacuated coastal populations and prohibited private overseas trade to curb piracy and affirm Sinocentric views that deemed foreign realms barbaric and unnecessary for China's self-sufficiency, reinforced by the Great Wall's expansions against northern nomads. This inward focus, while enabling cultural consolidation under , stifled technological exchange and left China unprepared for European encroachments by the . Japan's (1603–1868 CE) formalized isolation via ("closed country") edicts starting in 1633 CE, limiting foreign access to for controlled Dutch and Chinese commerce while expelling , Spanish, and Christian influences to avert internal unrest from missionary activities and ensure shogunal control. Enforced through sword hunts (katanagari) and domainal restrictions on travel, this policy fostered domestic stability and economic growth via rice-based but isolated from global innovations, ending only with U.S. Commodore Perry's arrival in 1853 CE.

19th-Century Developments and National Sovereignty

The , articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823, marked a pivotal development in isolationist foreign policy by formalizing U.S. non-entanglement in European affairs while asserting opposition to further European colonization or intervention in the . This policy stemmed from observations of European powers' post-Napoleonic interventions, such as the Holy Alliance's suppression of liberal revolts, and prioritized national sovereignty by declaring the Americas closed to new imperial designs, viewing any such actions as threats to U.S. security. The doctrine's dual commitment—U.S. neutrality toward existing European colonies and reciprocal non-interference in Old World conflicts—reflected a causal understanding that geographic separation from Europe's balance-of-power struggles preserved American autonomy and enabled internal development without the burdens of permanent alliances. Enforced initially through diplomatic assertion rather than military power, the supported the of Latin American republics emerging from Spanish and rule, as most had achieved by , deterring potential reconquests amid Europe's conservative restoration efforts. For instance, Britain, sharing anti-colonial interests, tacitly backed the policy via naval supremacy, which checked overt European moves without formal U.S.-British alliance, thus avoiding the entanglements warned against in George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address. This hemispheric focus allowed the U.S. to expand westward—annexing in 1845 and acquiring via the 1848 —while adhering to non-intervention in Europe, exemplified by neutrality during the 1853–1856 and the 1870–1871 , where domestic priorities like industrialization and sectional tensions took precedence. Isolationist principles intertwined with rising across the Atlantic, reinforcing sovereign non-intervention as a counter to supranational ideologies like the , which sought to export monarchical stability. In the U.S., this manifested in congressional resistance to overseas adventures until the 1890s, with presidents from to invoking sovereignty to reject entangling pacts, such as declining participation in the 1889 Pan-American Conference's more integrative proposals. Such policies empirically shielded emerging powers from great-power machinations, fostering —the U.S. GDP per capita rose from about $1,200 in 1820 to over $4,000 by 1900 in constant dollars—by diverting resources from foreign military outlays to infrastructure and settlement. Critics within Europe, including British Foreign Secretary , who influenced Monroe's formulation, viewed it as pragmatic realism rather than ideological retreat, aligning with Britain's own mid-century avoidance of continental leagues to safeguard imperial trade routes.

20th-Century Formulations Amid Global Conflicts

Following , which concluded on November 11, 1918, isolationist sentiments crystallized in opposition to U.S. participation in the League of Nations, with Senate Republicans led by rejecting the on March 19, 1920, prioritizing national sovereignty over collective security commitments. This formulation emphasized geographic separation from European power politics, arguing that entanglement in alliances would drain American resources without securing lasting peace, as evidenced by the war's 116,000 U.S. fatalities despite initial neutrality. Proponents viewed the conflict's ideological fervor—promoted by President —as a betrayal of traditional non-intervention, leading to policies like the Fordney-McCumber of 1922, which raised duties to 38.5% to shield domestic industries from foreign competition amid global instability. In the interwar period, isolationism evolved through legislative measures responding to perceived aggressions in and , such as Japan's invasion of on September 18, 1931, and Italy's conquest of in 1935, prompting the U.S. Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937, which banned arms sales and loans to belligerents to prevent repeats of profiteering. Key articulations came from senators like William E. Borah and , who in congressional debates framed isolationism as prudent realism, contending that U.S. military involvement abroad historically amplified rather than resolved conflicts, supported by data showing American exports to fell from $4.3 billion in 1920 to $1.6 billion by 1929 due to war debts and reparations disputes. This era's formulations intertwined economic self-reliance with strategic detachment, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 escalated duties to 59%, aiming to insulate the U.S. economy—then comprising 40% of global industrial output—from Depression-era contagions originating in Europe. As escalated with Germany's on September 1, 1939, isolationist rhetoric intensified via groups like the , founded September 4, 1940, which amassed 800,000 members and argued through figures such as that U.S. defense focused on hemispheric security sufficed, citing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as natural barriers proven effective in prior centuries. Lindbergh's September 1941 speech highlighted industrial capacity disparities, noting U.S. production outpaced Germany's by factors of 3:1 in aircraft, yet warned that aiding Britain would provoke Axis retaliation without altering Europe's balance, a view echoed in Gallup polls showing 94% opposition to entering the war pre-Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Critiques of this stance, including from the , later contended it overlooked causal links between and aggression, but contemporaneous data indicated isolationism stemmed from empirical war weariness rather than , with U.S. military spending at just 1.4% of GDP in 1939 versus 17% by 1944 post-intervention.

Manifestations in the United States

From Founding Fathers to Monroe Doctrine (1789–1865)

The Founding Fathers prioritized national sovereignty and domestic consolidation over foreign entanglements, viewing permanent alliances as threats to republican independence amid Europe's ongoing conflicts. , in his on April 22, 1793, declared the impartial in the war between and Britain, emphasizing avoidance of belligerent involvement to safeguard emerging institutions. This stance reflected first-hand experience with the Revolutionary War's costs and the fragility of the new confederation, leading to diplomatic maneuvers like the of November 19, 1794, which resolved British seizures of American ships without forming a military pact. Washington's Farewell Address, published September 19, 1796, encapsulated this approach, advising: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," while permitting temporary commercial ties but cautioning against the perils of foreign influence and partisan divisions exacerbated by European affairs. Successor administrations adhered to this framework; , upon assuming office on March 4, 1801, articulated in his First Inaugural Address a policy of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none," prioritizing state-level domestic governance and neutral trade despite provocations like the (1801–1805 and 1815). Jefferson's responses, including the Embargo Act of December 22, 1807, aimed to coerce Britain and into respecting U.S. neutrality through economic leverage rather than military commitment, though it inflicted domestic hardship without resolving maritime violations. The (June 18, 1812–February 17, 1815) marked a defensive deviation from strict non-intervention, driven by British impressment of American sailors (over 6,000 cases documented) and trade restrictions, yet its resolution via the on December 24, 1814, reaffirmed no territorial gains or alliances, reinforcing hemispheric focus. Post-war policy under culminated in the , announced December 2, 1823, which barred European recolonization of the Americas while pledging U.S. non-interference in European disputes: "The American continents... are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." Drafted with input from , it asserted unilateral defense of the against monarchical interventions—responding to Russian claims in the and Spanish reconquest fears—without obligating alliances or overseas expeditions, aligning with prior aversion to power balances. Through the 1840s and into the Civil War era, this doctrine underpinned expansionist moves like the annexation of (1845) and the (1846), framed as continental consolidation rather than global entanglement, while U.S. envoys deterred European meddling in Latin American independence without formal pacts. By 1865, amid the Union's preoccupation with , the policy had entrenched a pattern of unilateral hemispheric vigilance, eschewing multilateral commitments that could drain resources or import ideological contagions from .

Industrial Era and World War I Hesitancy (1865–1919)

Following the , the prioritized domestic reconstruction and industrial expansion over extensive foreign entanglements, reflecting a continuity of isolationist principles rooted in avoiding permanent European alliances. From 1865 to the 1890s, federal policy emphasized continental consolidation, including the completion of transcontinental railroads by 1869 and the suppression of Native American resistance, which absorbed military resources and public attention. Foreign engagements remained sporadic and hemispherically focused; William Seward invoked the in 1865 to deter French intervention in Mexico without committing troops, leading to III's withdrawal by 1867, while the 1867 Alaska purchase expanded territory without alliance obligations. This era saw U.S. industrial output surge, with production rising from 1.25 million tons in 1880 to 11.4 million tons by 1900, fostering economic self-sufficiency that reduced incentives for overseas military adventures. The late 19th century introduced tensions between isolationism and expansionism, exemplified by the 1898 Spanish-American War, which resulted in the acquisition of , , and the after a brief conflict costing 4,100 American lives. Proponents framed this as liberating hemispheric colonies rather than entangling in global power balances, with naval victories like the on May 1, 1898, enabling control without sustained European-style colonization. However, domestic debate highlighted isolationist reservations; anti-imperialist leagues, drawing on figures like , argued against "entangling alliances" and overseas possessions that could provoke foreign wars, echoing George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address. By 1900, the U.S. military ranked 14th globally in size, underscoring a hesitancy to project power beyond defensive perimeters. As erupted in Europe on July 28, 1914, President proclaimed strict neutrality on August 4, aligning with widespread American sentiment favoring non-involvement in what was perceived as an dynastic conflict. Approximately 10% of the U.S. population was of German descent, and harbored anti-British views, contributing to public opposition; Wilson's 1916 re-election slogan, "He kept us out of war," secured victory by a 23-electoral-vote margin. Economic ties grew—U.S. exports to the Allies reached $3.2 billion by 1916—but loans and supplies were framed as neutral commerce, not belligerence, preserving political detachment until German actions shifted the calculus. Neutrality eroded amid escalating provocations, including the sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7, 1915, which killed 128 Americans, and Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917, violating the 1916 Sussex pledge. The intercepted Zimmermann Telegram, revealed on March 1, 1917, proposed a German-Mexican alliance against the U.S., promising return of lost territories like Texas, further galvanizing interventionists. Despite these pressures, isolationist hesitancy persisted in Congress and among progressives wary of war profiteering and conscription; the U.S. did not declare war until April 6, 1917, after three years of deliberation, mobilizing 4.7 million troops only in response to direct threats rather than ideological alignment. This delay reflected causal priorities: geographic distance, economic interdependence without alliance commitments, and a populace prioritizing industrial prosperity over European stability.

Interwar Period and Neutrality Acts (1919–1941)

Following the United States' entry into World War I in 1917, widespread disillusionment emerged over the conflict's human and economic costs, estimated at over 116,000 American deaths and billions in expenditures, fostering a resolve to avoid future European entanglements. The Senate's rejection of the Treaty of Versailles on November 19, 1919, by a vote of 49-35, exemplified this shift, as it declined ratification due to concerns over Article X's potential obligation to intervene in League of Nations disputes, thereby preventing U.S. membership in the organization. President Warren G. Harding's 1920 campaign slogan of a "return to normalcy" capitalized on this sentiment, emphasizing domestic recovery over international commitments, with the U.S. pursuing separate peace treaties with Germany and its allies in 1921 without League involvement. In the 1920s, isolationist leanings persisted amid disarmament efforts like the of 1921-1922, which limited naval armaments among major powers but avoided binding alliances, reflecting a preference for unilateral security over collective defense. The , beginning in 1929, intensified economic inwardness, with unemployment reaching 25% by 1933, diverting attention from foreign affairs and amplifying skepticism toward internationalism as a drain on resources. This culminated in the Senate Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry, known as the (1934-1936), chaired by Senator , which examined profiteering by arms manufacturers like and , revealing profits up to 1,000% but finding no evidence of deliberate war provocation by industry or bankers. The committee's hearings, attended by over 100 witnesses, fueled public outrage and congressional momentum for legislation to neutralize trade incentives for war involvement. The Neutrality Act of August 31, 1935, mandated an arms embargo on belligerents upon presidential proclamation and restricted U.S. citizens from traveling on combatant ships, aiming to prevent incidents like the 1915 sinking from recurring. Extended in , it banned loans and credits to warring parties, responding to Nye Committee critiques of financial entanglements. The Neutrality Act of 1937 consolidated these measures, applying them to civil wars such as the (1936-1939) and introducing a "cash-and-carry" provision for non-military goods, requiring buyers to pay upfront and transport purchases themselves to minimize risks to U.S. shipping. President invoked these laws amid Japan's 1937 invasion of and Italy's 1935 assault on , though critics noted the acts' equal treatment disadvantaged democracies against aggressors lacking sea control. By 1939, escalating European tensions prompted the Neutrality Act of November 4, which repealed prior arms embargoes for cash-and-carry sales of munitions to s, effectively favoring Britain and due to their naval superiority while still prohibiting U.S. arming or belligerent port visits. This revision, passed after Germany's on September 1, 1939, marked a partial retreat from strict isolationism, enabling over $2 billion in Allied purchases by 1941, yet remained predominantly non-interventionist, with Gallup polls in 1940 showing 80% opposition to entering the war. Isolationist groups, including the formed in September 1940 with over 800,000 members, argued these acts preserved peace by severing economic ties to foreign conflicts, though the policy's rigidity arguably constrained early U.S. support against Axis expansion until the Japanese on December 7, 1941.

Post-World War II to Contemporary Restraint (1945–Present)

Following World War II, the United States abandoned pre-war isolationism in favor of global engagement, establishing institutions like the in 1945 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 to counter Soviet influence through . This shift reflected bipartisan consensus on forward defense, with military spending rising to 10% of GDP by 1953 amid the (1950–1953), where U.S. forces committed over 36,000 troops despite initial non-interventionist opposition from figures like Senator Robert Taft, who warned against "entangling alliances." However, restraint sentiments persisted among realists like George Kennan, who by 1950 critiqued excessive military commitments as risking overextension, advocating focus on core European interests over peripheral Asian conflicts. The (U.S. escalation 1965–1973) intensified calls for restraint, as casualties exceeded 58,000 American deaths and public approval plummeted from 61% in 1965 to 28% by 1971, fueling the of 1973 to limit presidential war-making authority. Non-interventionists, including Senator Eugene McCarthy's 1968 anti-war campaign, argued that ideological crusades diverted resources from domestic needs, echoing first-principles emphasis on national sovereignty over vague global policing. Post-withdrawal, the "" described U.S. hesitancy toward large-scale interventions, evident in the Carter administration's restrained response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of , opting for covert aid rather than direct involvement. In the post-Cold War era, the 1991 Persian Gulf War garnered 79% initial public support for liberating but highlighted restraint debates, with critics like decrying it as unnecessary entanglement beyond vital oil interests. The Clinton administration's interventions in (1992–1993) and the (1995–1999) faced backlash after events like the Black Hawk Down incident, where 18 U.S. deaths prompted withdrawal, reinforcing casualty aversion documented in polls showing support drops exceeding 10% per 100 casualties. By 2000, think tanks like the advocated a "prudent" , urging reductions in overseas bases from over 700 to focus on homeland defense and trade, citing empirical data on from global commitments post-Soviet collapse. The September 11, 2001, attacks temporarily revived interventionism via the Afghanistan invasion (2001) and (2003), authorized by Congress with initial 72% approval for Iraq. Yet, by 2006, 55% viewed Iraq as a mistake amid 4,500 U.S. deaths and $2 trillion costs, galvanizing libertarian voices like , who in presidential debates opposed "empire-building" as fiscally unsustainable, with U.S. debt-to-GDP rising from 55% in 2000 to 100% by 2012 partly due to war expenditures. Obama's 2011 intervention without congressional approval drew restraint critiques for lacking clear , while his Iraq drawdown reflected public war fatigue, with 52% opposing further Afghan surges in 2009 polls. The Trump administration's "America First" doctrine (2017–2021) embodied contemporary restraint, withdrawing from the in 2017, renegotiating NAFTA into USMCA, and pressuring allies to meet 2% GDP defense spending targets—achieved by only 3 of 29 members in 2018—while avoiding new ground wars and brokering without U.S. troops. Trump reduced U.S. troops in from 14,000 to 8,600 by 2020 and critiqued endless engagements, aligning with polls showing 59% of Americans in 2019 favored fewer Middle East commitments. Critics from interventionist circles labeled this isolationist, but proponents cited causal evidence of burden-sharing failures, as U.S. covered 70% of costs pre-Trump. Under Biden (2021–present), restraint debates intensified with the 2021 withdrawal—ending a 20-year presence costing 2,400 U.S. lives—despite chaotic execution drawing 54% disapproval, and ongoing Ukraine aid exceeding $175 billion by 2024, opposed by 40% of Republicans favoring negotiation over escalation. Public opinion reflects enduring restraint preferences: a 2023 poll found 61% believe U.S. military interventions rarely achieve lasting success, with majorities deeming post-9/11 wars in (61% mistake) and (58% mistake) failures, prioritizing domestic issues like over foreign aid. Advocates like the Quincy Institute argue empirical assessments show overreliance on force yields negative returns, as in Libya's post-2011 instability fostering migration crises and . This "restraint movement" draws from realist traditions, emphasizing selective engagement—defending routes and allies meeting obligations—over universal intervention, amid fiscal pressures with defense budgets at $886 billion in 2023 equating to 3.5% of GDP yet facing peer competitors like .

Isolationism in Asia

China: Tribute System and Modern Withdrawals

The tribute system, operational from the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) through the Qing dynasty (1644–1912), structured China's foreign relations around a Sinocentric hierarchy wherein tributary states formally acknowledged the emperor's superiority through periodic missions bearing gifts, in exchange for regulated trade access and nominal protection. This framework minimized direct military conquest or deep cultural integration, prioritizing ritual deference over expansive engagement, as China viewed itself as the civilized core amid peripheral "barbarians," thereby fostering a de facto isolationism by confining interactions to controlled, symbolic exchanges rather than reciprocal alliances or colonization. Empirical records, such as Ming dynasty (1368–1644) tribute logs documenting over 2,000 missions from Korea, Japan, and Southeast Asian polities between 1405 and 1567, illustrate how the system served internal stability and economic inflows—yielding silk, porcelain, and silver—without committing resources to overseas governance, though it occasionally strained imperial finances due to lavish receptions. Complementing this, policies like the Ming (sea prohibition) from 1371 onward and the Qing's 1757 restricted private maritime trade, confining foreign commerce to designated ports to curb , , and cultural contamination, reflecting a causal prioritization of domestic agrarian order over global navigation. These measures, enforced amid threats like Japanese raids (peaking in the 1550s with thousands of attacks), empirically preserved China's technological edge in areas like and bureaucracy but contributed to relative stagnation, as evidenced by the empire's failure to industrialize while Europe advanced via open seas from the . The system's collapse during the (1839–1842 and 1856–1860), when British forces exploited trade imbalances to impose unequal treaties, underscored its vulnerabilities, as self-imposed barriers left China unprepared for and extraterritorial concessions affecting 90 million subjects by 1900. In modern contexts, China's withdrawals echoed this inward focus through Mao Zedong's self-reliance doctrine (zili gengsheng) from 1949, formalized in the 1953–1957 First Five-Year Plan, which rejected Soviet aid dependencies post-1960 , emphasizing autarkic amid U.S. . This isolationist pivot intensified during the (1966–1976), severing diplomatic ties—evident in the 1969 border clashes with the USSR and withdrawal from UN forums until 1971—yielding short-term ideological cohesion but long-term costs, including the Great Leap Forward's (1958–1962) famine claiming 15–55 million lives due to disrupted agriculture and shunned foreign expertise. Post-Mao reforms under from 1978 reversed much withdrawal via special economic zones attracting $1.8 billion in foreign investment by 1985, yet recent trends under , including zero-COVID lockdowns (2020–) isolating 1.4 billion people and tech decoupling from Western firms (e.g., bans affecting $100 billion in trade by 2023), signal selective retreats prioritizing regime security over integration, as data shows slowed GDP growth to 4.7% in 2024 amid export curbs. Such policies, while mitigating perceived vulnerabilities like U.S. alliances, risk empirical backfire through innovation lags, as China's R&D reliance on imported chips (80% of advanced semiconductors in 2023) persists despite domestic pushes.

Japan: Sakoku Policy and Meiji Reversal

The policy, implemented by the , restricted foreign access to Japan through a series of edicts issued between 1633 and 1639, prohibiting Japanese subjects from traveling abroad under penalty of and expelling most European traders, primarily to suppress following the of 1637–1638, which involved Christian-led uprisings. Limited exceptions permitted trade with the at the artificial island of in Harbor, where Dutch merchants were confined and required to submit annual reports on global affairs, and with Chinese merchants also restricted to , allowing Japan to acquire select Western knowledge via (Dutch studies) in fields like and astronomy without broader cultural exposure. This controlled isolation fostered domestic stability and economic growth through internal commerce and rice-based taxation, sustaining a rise from approximately 18 million in 1600 to 30 million by 1850, while averting colonial domination seen elsewhere in Asia. The policy's reversal began with U.S. Commodore Matthew Perry's arrival in Bay on July 8, 1853, with four steam-powered warships—two equipped with Paixhans guns—delivering a letter from President demanding the opening of ports for trade and protection of American castaways, compelling Japanese officials to accept a subsequent treaty negotiation in 1854 due to the demonstrated technological superiority of Western naval power. The resulting Treaty of Kanagawa, signed March 31, 1854, granted extraterritorial rights and access to Shimoda and ports, followed by unequal treaties with other Western powers, which eroded shogunal authority amid domestic discontent over perceived capitulation and fears of foreign invasion. This external pressure catalyzed the of January 3, 1868, when imperial forces overthrew the , restoring practical power to and initiating fukoku kyōhei (rich country, strong army) reforms that dismantled feudal domains, centralized governance, and pursued rapid Western-style industrialization, including the establishment of modern factories, railways (first line opened 1872), and a conscript army modeled on Prussian lines. By 1894–1895, Japan's victories in the demonstrated the success of this reversal, as naval modernization enabled control of the and acquisition of , marking the transition from isolationist vulnerability to imperial expansion while avoiding the full inflicted on China.

Korea, Cambodia, and Bhutan: Enduring Neutrality Models

Korea under the Dynasty (1392–1910) exemplified a prolonged isolationist policy dubbed the "," whereby the government severely restricted foreign interactions to safeguard Confucian social order and autonomy, permitting only limited tributary exchanges with while rebuffing envoys from , , and the . This seclusion, intensified after the of 1882 and under regent Heungseon Daewongun's edicts of "no treaties, no trade, no Catholics, no West, and no Japan," endured for over four centuries until forcibly terminated by the , which compelled port openings and unequal concessions. The policy's endurance stemmed from a causal of internal stability over external risks, though it ultimately contributed to technological lag and vulnerability to imperial conquest. Cambodia, under Prince Norodom Sihanouk from 1953 to 1970, adopted a deliberate neutrality framework to navigate Cold War pressures, rejecting military alliances and balancing ties with the United States, Soviet Union, and China while declaring non-involvement in the Vietnam War. Sihanouk articulated this stance as a "dictate of necessity" for a small nation ringed by conflict, formalized through Geneva Conference recognitions in 1954 and barring foreign bases or troops, which preserved nominal sovereignty amid economic aid from multiple blocs totaling over $500 million by 1969. However, neutrality's endurance faltered under insurgent incursions and domestic opposition, culminating in the 1970 coup that invited deeper entanglements, underscoring the strategy's limits against asymmetric threats despite initial empirical success in averting direct superpower proxy status. Bhutan has sustained a model of guarded neutrality since the mid-20th century, evolving from historical —marked by minimal foreign contact until the —to a policy emphasizing preservation through selective engagement, as enshrined in the 1949 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with (revised in 2007 to affirm Bhutan's autonomous foreign affairs guidance). This approach, prioritizing internal metrics over global integration, limited diplomatic missions to 54 countries as of 2023 and enforced strict controls starting in 1974, with daily fees exceeding $250 per visitor to regulate cultural impacts. Bhutan's non-alignment in rivalries, including abstentions on UN votes critical of , reflects causal realism in leveraging geography and bilateral ties—primarily with for 70% of trade—for security without formal alliances, enabling enduring independence amid Himalayan border disputes.

Isolationism in Other Regions

Paraguay and Latin American Autarky

Under José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, who ruled Paraguay as supreme dictator from 1814 until his death in 1840, the country pursued a policy of strict economic and diplomatic isolation to safeguard its nascent independence from the threats posed by neighboring Argentina and Brazil. Francia sealed the borders, expelling or detaining foreigners suspected of espionage, and restricted international trade to minimal exports of yerba mate and tobacco in exchange for essential imports like tools and iron, achieving near self-sufficiency in agriculture and basic goods through state-directed communal labor and land redistribution. This autarkic approach, motivated by fears of reconquest and internal elite corruption, fostered population growth from approximately 120,000 in 1811 to over 300,000 by 1840, with low social inequality due to suppressed landownership concentrations and enforced subsistence farming, though it stifled technological advancement and external capital inflows. Francia's isolationism preserved Paraguay's political autonomy for decades, averting foreign domination until the War of the Triple Alliance (1864–1870), which devastated the nation under his successor Francisco Solano López, reducing the population by up to 60–70% through combat, disease, and famine. Elements of self-reliance persisted into the 20th century under Alfredo Stroessner’s dictatorship (1954–1989), where policies emphasized rural development and limited foreign dependency, echoing Francia's model in military control and national sovereignty, though Stroessner pragmatically reduced isolation by aligning with the during the for aid and hydroelectric projects like Itaipú Dam (shared with , operational from 1984). In broader Latin America, manifested through import-substituting industrialization (ISI) policies adopted from the 1930s onward, particularly after the disrupted export markets for primary commodities, prompting governments to erect high tariffs, exchange controls, and subsidies to nurture domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on imported manufactured goods from the and . ISI achieved rapid industrial growth—averaging 6–7% annual GDP expansion in countries like and during the 1950s–1970s—by fostering sectors such as , automobiles, and chemicals through state-owned enterprises and protected markets, but it engendered inefficiencies like overvalued currencies, chronic fiscal deficits, and vulnerability to oil shocks, culminating in the 1980s debt crisis with regional per capita income stagnating or declining. Paraguay engaged in milder ISI variants post-1950s, leveraging hydroelectric resources and agriculture for self-sufficiency, yet its landlocked geography and smaller scale limited the policy's scope compared to larger economies like Argentina under Juan Perón (1946–1955), where autarkic measures included nationalizing industries and prioritizing local production, yielding initial employment gains but eventual balance-of-payments crises by the 1950s. Overall, Latin American autarky prioritized national economic sovereignty over global integration, reflecting isolationist impulses amid perceived external exploitation, though empirical outcomes highlighted trade-offs between short-term industrialization and long-term productivity losses from distorted incentives.

Albania's Communist-Era Self-Reliance

Under Enver Hoxha's leadership from 1944 to 1985, Albania pursued a policy of self-reliance intensified after ideological breaks with the in 1961 and in 1978, when terminated all economic aid in July of that year, accounting for roughly half of Albania's imports. This shift compelled the regime to emphasize internal resource mobilization over foreign dependencies, framing self-reliance as a core Marxist-Leninist principle for socialist construction and national defense. Hoxha's government rejected credits or loans from capitalist states, as enshrined in the , while limiting trade to minimal exports of raw materials like , , and chrome to sustain basic imports. Economically, the policy manifested in rigorous central planning, forced collectivization of by the 1950s, and rapid industrialization drives that prioritized and using domestic labor and materials, though output remained low due to technological isolation. By the late 1970s, Albania's foreign trade volume was negligible, with policies curbing specialization and leading to inefficiencies, such as overemphasis on self-sufficiency in grains and metals at the expense of productivity gains from . The regime's 1976 party congress declarations underscored as an uncompromisable law, directing resources toward domestic production even amid shortages, which Hoxha justified as essential to avoiding imperialist subjugation. Militarily, fueled a massive bunkerization program from 1967 to 1986, constructing approximately 750,000 fortified structures—equating to one per four citizens—to prepare for potential invasions, diverting billions in resources from civilian needs and embedding a . This , coupled with universal military and border fortifications, reinforced Albania's isolation, severing and cultural exchanges while maintaining a closed under . The policy yielded short-term sovereignty from bloc dependencies but engendered long-term stagnation, with lagging behind European peers by the 1980s and reliance on for basics, as scarce data from the era indicate industrial growth rates averaging under 5% annually post-1978 amid resource strains. Hoxha's approach, while preserving control, exemplified autarky's causal trade-offs: enhanced perceived against external threats but at the cost of economic dynamism and living standards.

European Neutrality Traditions and Exceptions

European neutrality traditions emerged as strategic responses to geographic vulnerabilities and historical entanglements in conflicts, emphasizing non-alignment, armed , and roles rather than full isolationism. Switzerland's policy traces to the 1515 , where defeat prompted a shift toward perpetual neutrality, formalized by the 1815 , which recognized its independence and obligated abstention from alliances. This framework enabled to maintain sovereignty through both World Wars by facilitating diplomacy and economic exchanges without military participation, though it involved controversial dealings like handling during WWII. Sweden adopted neutrality in 1814 following the , avoiding alignment to preserve amid Scandinavian rivalries; this policy persisted through the 20th century, including non-belligerence in WWII via trade with both Axis and Allies, and Cold War-era covert cooperation without formal membership. Austria enshrined permanent neutrality on October 26, 1955, through a tied to the , which ended Allied occupation and prohibited military alliances or foreign bases, allowing regained between Eastern and Western blocs. Ireland declared military neutrality upon independence in 1922, upheld during WWII despite Axis overflights and incidents, prioritizing over partition disputes with Britain. Finland pursued a similar non-alignment post-1944 with the USSR, formalized in the 1948 , balancing proximity to with Western economic ties until the 1990s. Exceptions to these traditions highlight adaptations to shifting threats. and abandoned non-alignment in 2022 amid Russia's of , with acceding to on April 4, 2023, extending the alliance's Russian border by over 800 miles, and joining on March 7, 2024, after parliamentary approval and public support surging from 28% in 2014 to majorities post-invasion. These moves deviated from centuries-old policies but aligned with empirical security gains, as both nations cited deterrence against aggression; and , however, reaffirmed strict neutrality, rejecting sanctions facilitation or alliance bids despite pressures. maintains de facto neutrality, participating in UN (over 70,000 personnel deployed since 1958) and EU battlegroups without NATO membership, though debates persist over enhanced defense amid hybrid threats. Such exceptions underscore neutrality's conditional nature, rooted in causal assessments of invasion risks rather than ideological absolutism, with enduring models like 's demonstrating longevity through fortified borders and referendum-based consensus.

Theoretical Arguments and Empirical Assessments

Advantages: Economic Focus and Security Gains

Proponents of isolationism argue that it facilitates concentrated investment in domestic infrastructure and industry by curtailing overseas military commitments and associated expenditures. during the , a period marked by rejection of of Nations and emphasis on non-entanglement, federal defense outlays declined sharply post-World War I to around 0.5-1% of GDP, a fraction of wartime levels exceeding 30%, which coincided with annualized real GDP growth averaging 4.2% and surges in output, automobile production, and . This resource reallocation, unburdened by European reparations enforcement or alliance obligations, supported the era's commercial expansion without the fiscal drag of sustained foreign deployments. Similarly, Switzerland's armed neutrality policy, codified at the in 1815, has enabled avoidance of 20th-century world wars' direct costs, preserving capital for banking, precision manufacturing, and pharmaceuticals—sectors driving per capita GDP to over $92,000 by 2023, among the world's highest, while military spending remains below 0.7% of GDP. Neutrality's emphasis on self-reliant defense infrastructure, rather than expeditionary forces, minimizes opportunity costs, allowing fiscal surpluses to fund vocational and R&D, which underpin export-led growth exceeding 60% of GDP. On security fronts, isolationism mitigates risks of inadvertent escalation by forgoing alliances that could draw nations into remote disputes, leveraging geographic advantages for "free security." The U.S. in the , adhering to Washington's farewell admonition against permanent foreign attachments, faced no major invasions despite European upheavals, as oceanic buffers and non-intervention preserved without large standing armies, with conflicts limited to continental expansion rather than transatlantic ventures. This approach avoided the human and material tolls of entanglement, such as the over 400,000 U.S. fatalities in World Wars I and II, which isolationist restraint in prior eras sidestepped. Empirical patterns reinforce that non-intervention correlates with lower belligerency exposure; , for instance, has recorded zero combat deaths in international wars since 1815, fostering deterrence through fortified terrain and systems rather than offensive projections, which has deterred aggression without provoking preemptive strikes. Isolationism thus prioritizes endogenous defenses—fortifications, , and trade neutrality—over global policing, reducing vulnerability to asymmetric threats like insurgencies born from foreign occupations.

Disadvantages: Strategic Vulnerabilities and Opportunity Costs

Isolationist policies can expose nations to strategic vulnerabilities by forgoing alliances and mechanisms, thereby reducing deterrence against aggressors. In , U.S. isolationism, manifested through the Neutrality Acts of 1935–1937, prohibited arms sales and loans to belligerents, limiting America's ability to counter Japanese expansion in Asia or German aggression in Europe. This stance contributed to the failure of the League of Nations—already weakened by U.S. non-membership post-World War I—to halt invasions such as Japan's 1931 seizure of or its 1937 full-scale war against China, as isolationist sentiment prioritized domestic recovery from the over international entanglement. Consequently, aggressors faced minimal unified opposition, escalating global conflicts until direct attacks, like in 1941, compelled U.S. involvement. Economic isolation during or in anticipation of conflict further heightens vulnerabilities by constraining resource access and forcing leaders into high-risk strategies. Blockades or self-imposed , as experienced by in both world wars, induced severe shortages—such as a 61% drop in imports by 1917 during —prompting desperate escalations like , which drew neutral powers into the fray, or the 1941 invasion of the to seize resources. These "gambles for resurrection" expanded war fronts, swelled enemy coalitions, and often resulted in defeat, illustrating how isolation narrows strategic options to improbable victories or catastrophic failures rather than sustainable defense. Empirical patterns from these cases show that prewar integration does not mitigate such pressures; even partially autarkic preparations, like 's in , amplified domestic unrest and reduced adaptability when isolation intensified under . Beyond immediate threats, isolationism incurs opportunity costs through forfeited economic , technological diffusion, and alliances that enhance security without full commitments. Historical , such as Japan's edicts from 1633 to 1853, preserved internal stability but halted maritime innovation and access to global advancements, leaving the nation with outdated military capabilities unable to resist U.S. Commodore Perry's 1853–1854 , which imposed unequal treaties. Cross-country analyses indicate that sustained openness correlates with higher long-term growth; trade liberalization has empirically boosted per capita GDP by approximately 2% in adopting economies, with open systems achieving up to 50% greater wealth accumulation compared to closed ones over decades. Forgoing such integration, as in hypothetical U.S. retrenchment scenarios, could reduce output by 2.3% annually in severe cases, alongside higher consumer prices and rigidities from lost global efficiencies. These costs compound as isolated states miss defensive innovations from allied exchanges, underscoring causal trade-offs between short-term and enduring prosperity.

Verifiable Historical Data on Outcomes

During Japan's policy from 1639 to 1853, the country maintained internal peace for over two centuries, avoiding involvement in foreign conflicts and fostering through agricultural expansion and domestic commerce. The Tokugawa era saw per capita GDP growth in phases, particularly after , supported by proto-industrial activities in rural areas and a focus on production, with the rising from approximately 18 million in the early 1600s to around 30 million by the mid-1800s before stabilizing due to policy controls. This isolation preserved social order amid feudal structures but resulted in technological stagnation relative to , culminating in forced opening by U.S. Commodore Perry's expedition on July 8, 1853. In the United States from 1919 to 1941, isolationist policies post-World War I contributed to economic expansion in the 1920s, with real GNP increasing at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent, industrial production rising 6 percent yearly, and unemployment averaging below 5 percent until the 1929 crash. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 17, 1930, raised duties on over 20,000 imports, correlating with a 66 percent drop in global trade volume by 1933 and exacerbating the Great Depression domestically, as U.S. exports fell from $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.6 billion in 1933. On security, non-intervention delayed entanglement in European affairs, avoiding League of Nations commitments rejected by the Senate on March 19, 1920, but failed to prevent the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which killed 2,403 Americans and prompted U.S. entry into World War II. Albania's extreme self-reliance under from 1944 to 1985 yielded severe economic underperformance, with the country ranking as the third-poorest globally by Hoxha's death, featuring average monthly incomes of about $15 and widespread shortages due to rejected aid from both Soviet and Chinese blocs after ideological breaks in 1961 and 1978, respectively. Industrial output stagnated under centralized planning, with GDP growth averaging below 2 percent annually in the amid bunkers numbering over 170,000 for defense, diverting resources from development and leading to a nosedive in living standards without foreign investment or trade liberalization. Security-wise, isolation deterred direct invasions, maintaining sovereignty amid tensions, though internal purges executed or imprisoned tens of thousands, including 25,000 political prisoners by 1985. Paraguay under from 1814 to 1840 enforced near-total closure to foreign commerce starting in 1814, banning river traffic to and limiting trade to select smuggling routes for arms from and , which preserved independence from Buenos Aires' influence but constrained economic diversification beyond and production. Population grew modestly to around 300,000 by 1840 through state-controlled policies, avoiding colonial exploitation, yet the policy's end under in 1844 revealed accumulated technological and infrastructural deficits, with no railroads or modern industry until later decades.
Period/PolicyKey Economic MetricOutcomeSecurity MetricOutcome
Japan Sakoku (1639–1853)Per capita GDP growth post-1730Mild expansion via domestic tradeNo major warsInternal stability, pop. stabilization
U.S. Isolationism (1919–1941)GNP growth 2.7%/yr (1920s)Boom then Depression worseningPearl Harbor casualties: 2,403Delayed WWII entry, eventual attack
Albania Hoxha Era (1944–1985)Avg. income $15/month (1985)Stagnation, resource diversionBunkers: >170,000No invasions, high internal repression
Paraguay Francia (1814–1840)Trade limited to arms smugglingSubsistence focus, modest pop. growthIndependence preservedAvoided regional conquests

Criticisms, Defenses, and Controversies

Charges of Appeasement and Moral Indifference

Critics of isolationism, particularly during the , have charged that it effectively functioned as a form of by permitting aggressive without countervailing pressure, thereby emboldening dictators rather than deterring them. In the 1930s, U.S. policies rooted in isolationist sentiment, such as the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937, prohibited arms sales and loans to belligerents, which disproportionately disadvantaged victims of aggression like against Italian invasion in 1935 and against Japanese incursions starting in 1931 and escalating in 1937. These measures, intended to avoid entanglement, were argued by interventionists to signal non-resistance, mirroring European strategies such as the of September 30, 1938, where concessions to Nazi Germany's territorial demands went unchecked partly due to American non-involvement. Proponents of this critique, including President in his October 5, 1937, , contended that isolationism fostered further aggression by isolating peaceful nations rather than aggressors, allowing events like Japan's occupation of in 1931 to proceed without collective repercussions despite the Stimson Doctrine's verbal condemnation on January 7, 1932. , publisher of Time and Life magazines, amplified these charges in a February 17, 1941, Life editorial, asserting that American withdrawal from global responsibilities equated to moral abdication, enabling fascist powers to dominate unchecked and imperiling democratic values worldwide. The charge of moral indifference extends to isolationism's perceived reluctance to address humanitarian crises abroad, such as the limited U.S. response to Japanese atrocities in , including the from December 1937 to January 1938, where over 200,000 civilians were killed, or the early phases of Nazi post-1933, which isolationist opposition to immigration quotas and aid exacerbated by prioritizing domestic non-entanglement over victim relief. Critics like Roosevelt administration officials argued this stance reflected a callous prioritization of national self-interest, allowing totalitarian regimes to consolidate power through unopposed conquests and genocidal policies, as evidenced by the U.S. Senate's rejection of broader involvement after , which left aggressors like and facing no unified moral or material opposition in . Such positions, according to these detractors, not only delayed inevitable conflict but also eroded ethical imperatives against complicity in unchecked evil, with retrospective analyses post-Pearl Harbor on , 1941, framing pre-war isolationism as a culpable enabler of Axis ascendancy.

Rebuttals: Interventionism's Fiscal and Human Costs

Proponents of interventionism often emphasize strategic necessities, yet isolationist rebuttals highlight the enormous fiscal burdens imposed by prolonged military engagements, which divert resources from domestic priorities without commensurate returns. The post-9/11 wars in , , , , and related operations have incurred U.S. budgetary costs and obligations totaling approximately $8 trillion through 2020, encompassing direct military spending, veterans' care, and enhancements. Of this, about $2.3 trillion was allocated to Overseas Contingency Operations, with an additional $1 trillion minimum projected for future veterans' obligations alone. These expenditures, spanning over two decades, equate to roughly 38% of the cumulative U.S. federal discretionary budget during that period, crowding out investments in , , and healthcare that could yield measurable domestic benefits. Such fiscal commitments exacerbate national debt and opportunity costs, as funds expended on foreign conflicts forgo alternative uses with potentially higher returns on investment. For instance, the $6.4 trillion in direct budgetary outlays through 2020 could have covered universal for all American children multiple times over or substantially reduced infrastructure deficits, according to economic analyses of reallocative potentials. Isolationists contend that these interventions, justified as preventive measures, instead generated fiscal black holes: the alone cost over $2 trillion in direct and indirect expenses, yielding neither sustained stability nor reduced global terrorism threats, as evidenced by the rise of post-withdrawal. Historical precedents like the , with inflation-adjusted costs exceeding $1 trillion and contributing to 1970s , reinforce this critique, illustrating how interventionist policies strain economies without verifiable long-term strategic gains. Human costs further undermine interventionist rationales, with post-9/11 operations resulting in over 940,000 direct deaths across affected regions, including more than 432,000 civilians, by 2023 estimates. For Americans, these wars claimed 7,057 service members' lives and wounded over 32,000, alongside 8,000 contractor fatalities and elevated suicide rates among veterans—exceeding combat deaths in some years. Isolationist arguments posit that non-intervention would have preserved these lives and mitigated blowback effects, such as fueled by U.S. presence, which empirical data links to increased incidents rather than deterrence. In , two decades of engagement ended in the Taliban's 2021 resurgence, leaving behind not but heightened regional and crises, at the cost of American blood and treasure without altering core geopolitical dynamics. Critics of isolationism may invoke moral imperatives for action, but rebuttals emphasize causal realism: interventions often amplify human suffering through like civilian and prolonged insurgencies, as seen in where U.S.-led operations displaced 9.2 million people and contributed to persisting beyond 2011. Domestic human costs extend to families bearing psychological and economic scars, with veterans' disability claims projected to burden the system for generations, totaling hundreds of billions in lifetime care. By prioritizing restraint, isolationism avoids these escalatory traps, allowing resources to address verifiable domestic threats like border security or , where causal links to improved outcomes are stronger than in remote theaters.
CategoryEstimated Cost (USD Trillion, through FY2020)Key Components
Direct War Operations2.3Overseas Contingency Operations funding
Veterans' Care & 2.1+Future obligations and post-9/11 enhancements
Interest on 2.0+Borrowing to finance deficits from war spending
Total Post-9/11 Wars8.0Including indirect economic impacts

Balanced Viewpoints from Left, Right, and Realist Perspectives

From the left, proponents of isolationist-leaning policies argue that non-intervention enables redirection of military spending—estimated at $877 billion in 2022—toward domestic priorities like and social welfare, critiquing U.S. primacy as perpetuating inequality abroad and at home. This view frames endless engagements, such as the 20-year conflict costing over 2,400 U.S. lives and $2.3 trillion, as imperial overreach that diverts from anti-capitalist reforms. Critics on the left, however, contend that withdrawal abandons global , equating it to complicity in authoritarian advances; for instance, Jacobin writers distinguish anti-war internationalism—rooted in labor —from isolationism, which they see as neglecting interconnected struggles against and exploitation. On the right, isolationism appeals as a defense of national and , with 2023 polling showing 53% of Republicans favoring reduced involvement in world affairs to address domestic issues like and trade deficits exceeding $900 billion annually. Advocates, including Trump-era policymakers, justify this by highlighting opportunity costs of alliances, such as contributions where U.S. spending reached 3.5% of GDP in 2023 versus allies' lower shares, arguing it subsidizes freeriding nations while eroding American manufacturing. Opponents within , often neoconservatives, rebut that selective engagement preserves deterrence, warning that retrenchment invites aggression akin to pre-World War II failures, though empirical data on post-1945 U.S. interventions shows mixed security gains amid $8 trillion in post-9/11 expenditures. Realist perspectives in reject pure isolationism as strategically myopic, emphasizing that geographic buffers do not preclude threats from rising powers; , for example, advocates —intervening selectively in to prevent —over abstention, citing historical precedents like Britain's naval commitments to maintain equilibrium without continental overcommitment. This approach prioritizes causal power distributions, arguing that U.S. withdrawal from key regions could enable Chinese dominance in , with 2024 trade volumes at $575 billion underscoring economic stakes, while critiquing liberal interventionism for ideological overreach that inflates costs without altering relative capabilities. Realists thus favor restraint calibrated to verifiable threats, as full isolation risks amplifying adversaries' gains through unchecked expansion.

Recent Developments and Global Implications

Resurgence in U.S. Politics (2016–2025)

The 2016 presidential campaign of marked a pivotal moment in the revival of isolationist or non-interventionist sentiments within U.S. politics, encapsulated in his "" doctrine, which prioritized domestic economic revival over extensive foreign commitments and criticized post-9/11 interventions as costly and ineffective. Trump pledged to withdraw from "endless wars" in the Middle East, renegotiate trade agreements like NAFTA, and demand greater burden-sharing from allies, arguing that disproportionate U.S. contributions subsidized free-riding partners without reciprocal benefits. This rhetoric resonated amid public fatigue from prolonged conflicts in and , where U.S. military spending exceeded $2 trillion since 2001 with limited strategic gains. Within the Republican Party, this platform accelerated a departure from post-Cold War neoconservative internationalism toward restraint-oriented views, with GOP voters shifting markedly: isolationist identification among Republicans rose from around 40% pre-2016 to a 55% by Election Day 2016, further solidifying to oppose new packages like $24 billion for by 2023. Trump's 2017-2021 administration implemented elements of this stance, including exiting the on January 23, 2017, abrogating the Iran nuclear deal on May 8, 2018, and imposing tariffs on China totaling over $380 billion in imports to address trade imbalances, while pressuring members to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target—achieved by 23 of 32 allies by 2024. Public opinion data corroborated the trend, with surveys showing Republican support for an active U.S. world role dropping to 40% by 2023 from higher levels pre-2016, contrasted against sustained Democratic backing near 70%, amid broader wariness of interventions: 69% of Americans opposed non-defensive military action in the in 2025 polls. The Biden administration (2021-2025) partially reversed course with renewed alliances and $175 billion in aid since 2022, yet failed to stem populist skepticism, as evidenced by GOP congressional resistance. Trump's victory in the November 5, , election, securing 312 electoral votes, reaffirmed the resurgence, with campaign promises of swift peace deals via negotiations and 60% tariffs on Chinese goods signaling a transactional approach over . By early 2025, incoming policies emphasized border security and as bulwarks against foreign dependencies, though critics from establishment circles—often aligned with interventionist think tanks—labeled it neo-isolationism risking alliances, while proponents cited empirical failures of prior engagements like Libya 2011 to justify restraint. This evolution reflects causal drivers like from —U.S. jobs fell 5 million from 2000-2016—and asymmetric alliance costs, prioritizing verifiable national returns over ideological .

Echoes in International Relations and Populism

Populist movements in have increasingly incorporated isolationist elements into their platforms, emphasizing national and skepticism toward multilateral institutions as a means to shield domestic interests from external influences. For instance, Hungary's Prime Minister has vetoed or delayed decisions on aid to , prioritizing Hungary's energy ties with and opposing what he terms supranational overreach, which has strained relations with while aligning more closely with non-Western powers. This approach exemplifies populist isolationism, where leaders frame international commitments as threats to , often drawing on historical precedents of non-intervention to justify reduced entanglement in continental affairs. In , Giorgia Meloni's government has pursued a sovereignty-centric , rejecting EU-wide migration quotas and advocating bilateral deals over collective frameworks in the Mediterranean, while maintaining commitments but subordinating them to national priorities such as border security. Meloni's stance reflects a broader populist trend of critiquing globalist institutions for eroding state , as evidenced by her push for member-state identity preservation within the EU. Similarly, 's Rassemblement National under has advocated for repatriating powers from the EU, opposing French military interventions abroad unless directly benefiting national interests and favoring "France first" over expansive alliances. The United Kingdom's referendum in 2016 marked a pivotal assertion of isolationist tendencies in , with proponents arguing for withdrawal from the to reclaim control over borders, trade, and laws, thereby avoiding supranational constraints despite subsequent economic analyses highlighting trade disruptions. Although the post- "Global Britain" narrative counters full isolation by seeking new bilateral ties, the policy's core rationale—prioritizing domestic legislation over integrated European decision-making—has echoed in other platforms, fostering a pattern of disengagement from regional blocs. These developments, spanning 2016 to 2025, illustrate how revives isolationist logic amid globalization's perceived costs, often prioritizing empirical national gains like reduced migration over abstract alliance benefits, though critics from establishment sources contend this risks strategic vulnerabilities.

References

  1. https://www.cfr.org/excerpt-isolationism
  2. https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/isolationism-and-us-foreign-policy-after-world-war-i
  3. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism
  4. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/farewell-address-5/
  5. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/it-is-our-true-policy-to-steer-clear-of-permanent-alliance-with-any-portion-of-the-foreign-world
  6. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/WashFarewell.pdf
  7. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine
  8. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/call-it-isolationism
  9. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/neither-isolationist-nor-noninterventionist-the-right-way-think-about
  10. https://theconversation.com/what-is-isolationism-the-history-and-politics-of-an-often-maligned-foreign-policy-concept-245201
  11. https://ondisc.nd.edu/news-media/news/what-are-the-4-types-of-foreign-policy-and-how-are-they-pursued/
  12. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/sparta-athens-rivals-or-friends
  13. https://lawliberty.org/book-review/spartas-splendid-isolationism/
  14. https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%253A_History_of_World_Civilization_II-2_%28Lumen%29/06%253A_4%253A_East_Asia/06.3%253A_Ming_Dynasty%253A_Exploration_to_Isolation
  15. https://www.uschamber.com/economy/what-ancient-china-can-teach-us-about-trade
  16. https://helpfulprofessor.com/isolationism-examples/
  17. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe
  18. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/monroe-doctrine-1823
  19. https://millercenter.org/president/monroe/foreign-affairs
  20. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/monroe-doctrine
  21. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/return
  22. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-49
  23. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/wcfia/files/579_mythofusisol.pdf
  24. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league
  25. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=glihist
  26. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/french-rev
  27. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/foreword
  28. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
  29. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp
  30. https://millercenter.org/president/jefferson/foreign-affairs
  31. https://millercenter.org/president/washington/foreign-affairs
  32. https://www.hursthistory.org/uploads/1/0/7/0/107013873/us_foreign_policy_1865-1914.pdf
  33. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/progressive-era-to-new-era-1900-1929/united-states-participation-in-world-war-i/
  34. https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/us-enters-war
  35. https://www.history.com/articles/u-s-entry-into-world-war-i-1
  36. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi
  37. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties/senate-rejects-treaty-of-versailles.htm
  38. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/neutrality-acts
  39. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united-states-isolation-intervention
  40. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations/merchants-of-death.htm
  41. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/s-res-206-resolution-make-certain-investigations-concerning-manufacture-and-sale-arms-and
  42. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/nye-committee
  43. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/neutrality-act-of-august-31-1935/
  44. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/neutrality-acts-1930s
  45. https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/foreign-policy-1920-2020/timeline-small.pdf
  46. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/14/united-states-realism-restraint-great-power-strategy/
  47. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-and-vietnam-war-how-race-gender-and-partisanship-affect-views-toward-military
  48. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB2502.html
  49. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49639-eighty-years-after-d-day-american-perspectives-us-wars-vietnam-iraq-wwii-wwi-poll
  50. https://www.governing.com/context/americas-long-complicated-history-of-isolationism
  51. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/65-restoring-prudence-restraint-us-foreign
  52. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48215-us-military-interventions-successful-justified-poll
  53. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-24/strategies-restraint
  54. https://millercenter.org/president/trump/foreign-affairs
  55. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/deep-roots-trump-isolationism-america-first
  56. https://agenda.americafirstpolicy.com/strengthen-leadership/establish-an-america-first-foreign-policy
  57. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-foreign-policy-restraint/
  58. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA739-2.html
  59. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/15/judicious-retrenchment-isolationism-internationalism/
  60. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tributary-system
  61. https://chinahandsmagazine.org/2025/04/11/evolutionary-history-of-the-chinese-tributary-system/
  62. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/download/0/0/40597/41849
  63. https://www.ourherald.com/articles/chinas-historical-isolation/
  64. https://academic.oup.com/book/34582/chapter/293849070
  65. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/16/what-the-isolationist-qing-dynasty-tells-us-about-xi-jinpings-china
  66. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2022/1014/Safety-or-stagnation-Why-China-s-isolationism-may-backfire
  67. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/07/china-xi-jinping-great-wall/678949/
  68. https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/modern-history/sakoku/
  69. https://www.triptojapan.com/blog/tokugawa-shogunate-a-pivotal-part-of-japanese-history
  70. https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c00104/
  71. https://www.japan-experience.com/preparer-voyage/savoir/histoire-du-japon/rangku-etudes-hollandaises
  72. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/japan-and-the-world-1450-1770-was-japan-a-closed-country/
  73. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan
  74. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_perry.htm
  75. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-perry-expedition-and-the-opening-of-japan-to-the-west-1853-1873-a-short-history-with-documents/
  76. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_meiji.htm
  77. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/korea-from-hermit-kingdom-to-colony/
  78. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e8eae7/the_joseon_dynasty_is_commonly_referred_to_as/
  79. https://2009-2017.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/southkorea/5049.htm
  80. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/cambodia/cambodia-neutral-dictate-necessity
  81. https://countrystudies.us/cambodia/59.htm
  82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44139010
  83. https://www.britannica.com/place/Bhutan/History
  84. https://academic.oup.com/irap/article/22/2/297/6327065
  85. https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/paraguay-an-island-surrounded-by-land/
  86. https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/52/1/102/152109/Paraguayan-Isolation-under-Dr-Francia-A-Re
  87. https://sistory.co/2018/01/05/really-really-relevant-lessons-from-19th-century-paraguay/
  88. https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/59/4/761/149983/Paraguay-s-Autonomous-Revolution-1810-1840
  89. https://www.americasquarterly.org/fulltextarticle/how-the-reign-of-paraguays-original-dictator-echoes-to-this-day/
  90. https://www.britannica.com/place/Paraguay/The-Stroessner-regime
  91. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/latin-american-research-review/article/import-substitution-and-industrialization-in-latin-america-experiences-and-interpretations/E0C00FD67807202DEBDE79E9BA29E37A
  92. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27919/w27919.pdf
  93. https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/failed-protectionism-what-latin-america-can-teach-us/
  94. https://centrodeeconomiapolitica.org/repojs/index.php/journal/article/download/508/507/982
  95. https://latinaer.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s40503-017-0047-4
  96. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/import-substitution
  97. https://countrystudies.us/albania/41.htm
  98. https://countrystudies.us/albania/70.htm
  99. https://michaelharrison.org.uk/2021/01/self-reliance-a-great-marxist-leninist-principle-in-the-construction-of-socialism-and-the-defence-of-the-country/
  100. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/434956/summary
  101. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/hlm/prgm/cph/experts/albania/materials/eiu_profile.pdf
  102. https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/bigreview/article/view/20783/9359
  103. https://www.academia.edu/3271635/Enver_Hoxhas_Albania_Isolationism_and_Attempted_Autarky_Born_of_Perceptions_of_Imperialism
  104. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85S00316R000200090004-7.pdf
  105. https://www.history.com/articles/why-is-switzerland-a-neutral-country
  106. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=auilr
  107. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=historical-perspectives
  108. https://www.government.se/speeches/2024/04/why-sweden-joined-nato---a-paradigm-shift-in-swedens-foreign-and-security-policy/
  109. https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/constitutional_law_on_the_neutrality_of_austria_26_october_1955-en-670aa09c-4d4b-451a-84f2-23f2f9c8cb06.html
  110. https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/55c09dcc-a9f2-45e9-b240-eaef64452cae/82a231a7-3890-4951-bc38-b68ec5d5f52c
  111. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/a-brief-history-of-irelands-military-neutrality-and-how-things-stand-today/a1391082614.html
  112. https://www.e-ir.info/2024/07/12/from-cold-war-neutrality-to-the-west-finlands-route-to-the-european-union-and-nato/
  113. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm
  114. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sweden-nato-membership-strategic-implications-regional-balance-of-power-by-carla-norrlof-2024-03
  115. https://www.ireland.ie/en/dfa/role-policies/international-priorities/peace-and-security/neutrality/
  116. https://danubeinstitute.hu/en/research/swiss-neutrality-the-anatomy-of-success
  117. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-u-s-economy-in-the-1920s/
  118. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/military-spending-as-a-share-of-gdp-gmsd
  119. https://www.themarketforideas.com/is-neutrality-the-answer-switzerlands-economy-in-the-aftermath-of-the-world-wars-war-creatures-great-and-small-ii-a806/
  120. https://lfa.ch/investing/geopolitical-instability-how-swiss-neutrality-can-benefit-your-investments/
  121. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=CH
  122. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/virtue-isolationism/616499/
  123. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-switzerland-will-stick-to-neutrality
  124. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/isolationism-versus-engagement
  125. https://tnsr.org/2020/04/desperate-measures-the-effects-of-economic-isolation-on-warring-powers/
  126. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sakoku
  127. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-mondes-en-developpement-2006-3-page-63?lang=en
  128. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/topics/latest-news/2017/september/us-economic-isolation-hurts-the-global-economy-and-the-us-itself
  129. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/07/lessons-on-growth-from-1300-years-of-japanese-history/
  130. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=econ_workingpapers
  131. https://emerging-europe.com/analysis/economy-in-focus-albania/
  132. https://photius.com/countries/albania/economy/albania_economy_isolation_and_autark~16.html
  133. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3459665
  134. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jose-Gaspar-Rodriguez-de-Francia
  135. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/quarantine-speech
  136. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/07/american-isolationism-henry-luce-ww2
  137. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/18/1232263785/generations-after-its-heyday-isolationism-is-alive-and-kicking-up-controversy
  138. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/economic
  139. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/economic/us-federal-budget
  140. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/Costs-of-War_US-Budgetary-Costs-of-Post-9-11-Wars.pdf
  141. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/financial-legacy-iraq-and-afghanistan-how-wartime-spending-decisions-will-constrain
  142. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human
  143. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/findings
  144. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/two-cheers-for-isolationism/
  145. https://jacobin.com/2022/04/antiwar-internationalists-isolationists-eugene-debs-russia-ukraine
  146. https://www.cfr.org/blog/election-2024-are-republicans-turning-isolationist
  147. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Offshore-Balancing.pdf
  148. https://standtogether.org/stories/foreign-policy/restraint-is-about-realism
  149. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/04/trumps-foreign-policy-he-wants-to-turn-the-tables-not-leave-the-room?lang=en
  150. https://goodauthority.org/news/the-remarkable-rise-of-isolationist-republicans/
  151. https://centrum.tdb.uw.edu.pl/america-first-again-the-resurgence-of-republican-isolationism-in-modern-u-s-politics/
  152. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-america-reverting-to-isolationism/
  153. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/2025-survey-public-opinion-us-foreign-policy
  154. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/most-americans-support-immediately-ending-us-involvement-conflict-iran
  155. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-is-trumps-reelection-likely-to-affect-us-foreign-policy/
  156. https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/07/trump-isolationism-globalization-china-competition-manufacturing-tariffs-migration/
  157. https://peacediplomacy.org/2024/10/21/dont-look-now-but-isolationism-is-winning/
  158. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/briefing/is-donald-trump-an-isolationist.html
  159. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/01/heres-why-trumps-foreign-policy-is-hard-to-pin-down.html
  160. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-troublemaker-orban-victorious-home-isolated-brussels-2023-12-15/
  161. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/populist-attitudes-and-foreign-policy-postures-a-comparative-analysis-of-four-european-countries/AFDC5D5CCCA3C6C1BAF18C543577D8DE
  162. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2025/02/26/pragmatism-and-power-giorgia-melonis-strategic-balancing-act-between-washington-and-brussels/
  163. https://www.omfif.org/2025/05/the-two-faces-of-melonis-italy-disciplined-and-quietly-dangerous/
  164. https://decode39.com/12187/melonis-europe-stability-as-strategy/
  165. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_britain_voted_for_independence_but_it_has_achieved_isolation/
  166. https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/the-uk-between-isolationism-and-global-britain/
  167. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2025.2465374
  168. https://ecfr.eu/publication/rise-to-the-challengers-europes-populist-parties-and-its-foreign-policy-future/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.