Foreign Intervention

Introduction

Isolationism is a foreign policy doctrine characterized by a nation’s deliberate avoidance of entanglement in international affairs and its commitment to maintaining a policy of non-intervention in the conflicts of other nations. Isolationism calls for nations to focus on domestic interests and avoiding extensive political, economic, or military entanglements with other countries. 

This doctrine is founded on the belief that a nation’s primary focus should be the preservation of its own sovereignty, security, and interests, often at the expense of active participation in global diplomatic, economic, and military affairs. Isolationism has been employed by various nations throughout history as a means of safeguarding their autonomy and minimizing external influences.^[1]

A notable example of a nation adopting isolationism is modern day North Korea (or Hermit Kingdom), the United States was also considered isolationist during 1930’s, which was abandoned in 1941 due to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

Conservative Perspective

Conservatives are divided on their isolationist tendencies. Some conservatives argue that nations should police foreign wars, arguing that there is a moral duty to help others. Other conservatives argue that governments should be hyper-focused on attending to domestic needs. Like many issues, there are a variety of perspectives across the spectrum of isolationist to interventionist.

Isolationist Conservatives

Conservatives who are isolationist often argue that foreign intervention is expensive, that it infringes on other, sovereign nations, and that it distracts from domestic focuses. Isolationism is a key trait of paleo-conservatism.

Cost of Foreign Intervention

Isolationist conservatives assert that foreign interventions are expensive, requiring significant financial resources, adding that the financial burden of prolonged foreign interventions can contribute to the national debt. Additional arguments are made that reducing overseas military commitments would ease the financial burden on the country’s economy and make additional resources available for domestic needs. An example of this is how the intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has cost the government billions of taxpayer dollars, which could have been used to cover domestic needs.

Respect for Sovereignty

Isolationist conservatives emphasize the principle of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign nations, contending that foreign interventions, even with good intentions, can be seen as infringing on the autonomy of other countries, leading to diplomatic tensions and potential conflicts. Additionally, arguments are made that respecting the sovereignty of other nations fosters a more stable and peaceful international order.^[2]

Focus on Domestic Priorities

Isolationist conservatives contend that too much focus on foreign affairs can divert attention and resources away from pressing domestic issues, arguing for concentrating efforts on addressing internal challenges, promoting economic growth, and strengthening national cohesion. Moreover, the belief is that excessive involvement in foreign conflicts can contribute to social and political divisions at home, which could threaten social harmony.^[3]

Interventionist Conservatives

Interventionist leaning conservatives, often associated with neo-conservatism, argue that there is a moral duty to help in times of war. Even though war is expensive, sacrifice is required in order to rid the world of evil and by doing so, countries can establish alliances with those they help, further strengthening a country’s own defense and trading abilities.

Moral Duty and responsibility to protect

Interventionist conservatives may advocate for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, asserting that the international community has a responsibility to intervene when a government fails to protect its citizens from gross human rights abuses, in addition to a moral duty to intervene in times of war to combat evil and protect human rights. An example of this is the NATO intervention in former Yugoslavia to protect the Albanians from being ethnically cleansed in 1999.^[4]

Sacrifice for the greater good

While acknowledging the financial costs of war, interventionist conservatives assert that the sacrifice is necessary to achieve greater global stability and security. Arguments are made that certain conflicts require intervention to prevent the spread of tyranny and maintain international order. Additionally, interventionists argue that the short-term sacrifices made during conflicts can lead to long-term benefits, such as the establishment of democracies and the promotion of freedom, which contribute to a more secure and prosperous world.

Building alliances

Interventionist conservatives assert that providing aid and military assistance to countries in need strengthens alliances, arguing that by helping nations in times of crisis, a country can build strategic partnerships and coalitions that enhance its own security and geopolitical influence. Moreover, arguments are made that intervening in conflicts can lead to the establishment of strong economic and trade relationships with the countries they assist, promoting mutual benefits and contributing to global economic stability.^[5]