The United States captured Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines from Span and began the quest of American Imperialism. The impact of this break from traditional ideologies were tremendous as the U.S. was thrust upon the world scene but the United States was for all purposes still considered “isolationist” as it was not a world power and the national interest in the global scene was limited at best. Not until the end of World War II, the U.S. learned to stay safely disconnected from global affairs.

                The leading ideology after World War I was liberalism, which believed that through democracy and ideological similarities, countries can avoid problems and prevent upheaval and war. The isolationist policies of the United states helped to make sure it did not involve itself in the secret alliances in Europe that led up to the World War even though the U.S. did become involved in the war through weapons sales, attacks on ships, media bias driving the opinion of the country, the mounting ideology of liberalism to defend Western Europe and the maneuvers by President Woodrow Wilson. By the end of the war, the nation [U.S.] was weary of the global problems and wanted to return back to the policy of isolationism.

                The nostalgic feeling to retreat back to continental U.S. and the poor job of the President to properly present his ideas led to the defeat of the treaty in the U.S. Senate to join the League of Nations. Even though the United States organized the effort, it was defeated in the senate and the country returned its focus back to domestic affairs. It was not until World War II that we see the United States emerge into the international stage as a world power.

                After the U.S. joins World War II, the tide begins to turn for the allies and the U.S. economy and military becomes a driving force in the world for allied success. After the victory in WWII, the U.S. officially emerged as a superpower with a determination to stay engaged with the international community as a whole. The U.S. Senate voted in favor of the United Nations – partly due to President Roosevelt and his political maneuvering to present the United States as a world power. The Senate’s ratification of the treaty further became a marker of the shift in US policy from isolationism to internationalism and the emergence of the U.S. as a world power. The treaty enabled the U.S. to play a new multilateral role on the international stage with the distinguished veto power in the U.N. Security Council. It many ways, this was the beginning of the very struggle George Washington envisioned and warned the U.S. about in his farewell address.

                The Marshall Plan for Europe and the policy of containment and the “battle” against Soviet Union in the cold war struggles all contributed to further shift of the U.S. foreign policy to a more internationalistic approach. The idea of liberalism was replaced by realism as it gained popularity in the post-World War II era.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unipolar world with America as the lone superpower (both economically and militarily) became a large testament of the impact of the U.S. policy shift to internationalism. However the shift was not without its consequences. The United States is now involved in every major global scene and is sometimes perceived as a “bully” by certain nations.

                There is also a growing American impatience to get results with the least casualties or consequential costs when the United States engages in armed conflicts, small engagements (such as the anti-terrorism missions we conduct abroad) and in the diplomatic front. The U.S. also developed ambiguous diplomacy so the difference between appeasement and compromise is confusing for the current and future administration. The United States has also been winning wars but at the price of “loosing the peace” as wars are fought to be ended quickly without regard for consequences. One example of this during the early years has been the inability to solve the crisis during the Korean War but more recently this is seen developing in the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                Even though the United States is a global power, the discussion of whether the U.S. is the world’s “policing force” is a heated topic. Calls for a safe detachment from the global platform have been echoing in the U.S. as more regional powers and new superpowers begin to emerge. This was seen clearing during the surprisingly popular grassroots movement seen in the presidential bid of Ron Paul who proposes a U.S. foreign policy of “nonintervention” to replace the policy of internationalism we currently have. There are also more calls for the United States to world through a multilateral framework instead of a unilateral approach to issues as the nation is involved in almost every corner of the globe in every conflict imaginable.

            One key issue that a single country cannot amend by themselves is climate change. This phenomenon has been observed and printed in school textbooks since before the 1970s, yet it has not made major headlining news until Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ premiered. This is a clearly global issue that has been traced back to the industrial revolution with the discovery of coal, and later, oil. Many people, environmentalists and internationalists alike, have been left frustrated at the lack of progress by world leaders around the globe. The only way to combat climate change is for the world leaders to work together and inform their people of the danger that this problem presents. There has been some progress concerning this matter, the Kyoto accord was signed in the 1990s, however it has been ineffective as the United States did not sign and Canada opted out after Stephen Harper gained office. Every attempt at reinstating the accord has resulted in failure. An un-honored agreement in a few industrialized countries is not enough, the whole world must work together as a whole and collaborate together to ensure our future and protect our planet.

             One factor that greatly affects the cooperation of countries around the world is economics. Every country has their own economic system that is linked and integrated with other economic systems across the globe, with these markets becoming so interconnected it will soon be difficult to distinguish one market from another, and no longer will countries be able to operate in their own modus. Therefore, for the sake of the global stock market it is imperative that every nation works together to ensure global prosperity. Whether this goal is achieved through free trade agreements or other similar arrangements is of little consequence as long as all countries, rich and poor, participate to achieve the best possible outcome. The goal of internationalists concerned with economics is for all countries to arrive on a level playing field so that all citizens will have a fair and equal chance of financial success. The failure of this goal is not an option, if the world fails here, it will also fail in all other areas and the world will dissolve into disaster.

            Recently the world has been facing several threats of countries working unilaterally with violent aims against others. This is a major problem as it poses a threat to global security and may cause World War Three. Both North Korea and Iran are currently believed to be developing nuclear warheads which motivate other countries to become hostile that may escalate to war. However the international community has responded more to this threat than the others, economic sanctions have been erected towards North Korea, and more are being proposed for Iran. Unfortunately these reparations may not be enough to dissuade the countries. Currently it seems that Iran is stalling for time, possibly to create enough time to finish developing nuclear bombs, or to create unrest in the world. However, if everyone continues to work together to achieve a common goal it can lead to major results and the world will no longer have to worry about death and destruction. A world unified towards common goals will be stronger then each individual striving to make themselves better.

            In the past people have been ignorant to each other, not caring that the country next door was starving, and, back then, it may have been acceptable. News did not travel nearly as fast as it does in today’s society, and people have begun to take notice. As news travels faster and people become more aware of things happening in the world around them it is impossible to ignore those suffering. As the source described, it is no longer possible to move forward as a society on a unilateral stage, the people and the countries must work together to solve the world’s problems and unite against the common enemy. If the people do not, then everyone’s lifestyle will degenerate and life as it is known will cease to exist. First the economy will crash, then countries will begin fighting, and finally nature will no longer be able to support the population. Per contra this does not need to happen, if everyone works together, these things can be stopped before they even start, the people just need to make it happen.

We need a one world government and allow this planet to be united and support one another in gaining equal living standards for every human. Money, and credit will not help us in doing so, and anyone who has read my other blog on here about getting rid of money and credit you will know where I stand on that, we have technology, and other ways of living without haaving to rely on money and credit, and getting rid of both money and credit would stop thing like kidnappying, identity theft in some circumstances, and these greedy big wigs at the top of banks etc gaining so much power, and money which they do not need.

So I hope we all start helping our communities, helping our grandparents, and other in life to allow us to have a better standard of living, and blend this planet into one nation, a one world nation. If you agree with me in this then please leave a comment, and you name if you feel like it, as I would like the world to see that it’s not all about selfishness and serving your bank account, and burning people fingers because they have what you need or you are in the way of what they want. Thers is a saying that goes…….”if you are climbing up the mountain, then lift someone as you go.” As not everyone has the means to get up the mountain safely. We all need help getting up our mountains to the top of the world, and if we can support one another, then lets do so instead of watching someone suffer !!

The most disturbing movement away from socialism under the Blair governments was in international policies and action. Socialism is about peoples being able, democratically, to take decisions about their own lives. Governments should be elected by the people, not imposed by external forces.

There was no case for military intervention in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan. We were not invited in as a result of any democratic decision. For this reason it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the motivation, in the case of Iraq, was to gain control of that country’s oil.

The argument about weapons of mass destruction would not have held water, even if Iraq had had them. The most appropriate policy for halting the development of nuclear weapons is to campaign for their removal, giving a lead by getting rid of our own.

In the Middle East, the relevant action is to stop supporting Israel as a nuclear state. If Israel did not have nuclear arms, the argument against other countries having them would be much more convincing – and much more likely to succeed.

Socialism and Common Sense

Leaving aside socialism for a moment, let us consider the invasion of Iraq in terms of a common sense; a common sense which takes history into account. Millions of people alive remember Vietnam and many of them predicted the chaos, loss of life and financial cost of the Iraq project.

The United Kingdom’s experience of movements for colonial independence should have taught that democracy cannot be imposed by external forces. The same applies to USA intervention in, for example, South American states. Solutions are always political, as a result of negotiations, not military.

None of this means that socialism is anti-internationalism. Consider the difference it would have made if the hundreds of £ billions spent on killing people (in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries which have suffered military intervention) had been spent on fighting starvation and disease, and encouraging enterprise, in developing countries.

Instead of millions killed, millions of lives would have been saved.

The United Nations

A socialist approach to international policy would mean that, where there is a case for intervention – for example on humanitarian grounds – it would be under the auspices of the United Nations. This would prevent any country intervening to promote its own interests.

This policy would work only if agreed by countries with large armed forces. They will not be easy to convince. The challenge is to persuade them that, in the longer term, it is in their interests to support international control of any intervention in the affairs of another state.

The justification for intervention is most commonly humanitarian. However, it has to be accepted that there are circumstances where the use of force is necessary to achieve peace. An example is where a country is ravage by civil war. In such circumstances the crucial factor is that the United Nations force is constituted in such a way that it is accepted as neutral.

Internationalism implies a much wider outlook than nationalism; it means catholicity if thinking, a broad vision, an acceptance of diversity, and an attitude of sympathy towards all units that comprise the world. Internationalism thus transcends all national considerations and thinks in terms of a growing unity among the countries of the world.