The concept of America First, coined and consistently promoted by former U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration, has exposed the United States to profound dangerous risks, according to respected historians. This policy won’t only potentially jeopardize US diplomatic relations but could also invite a multi-front war, experts warn. Critics find the America First strategy to be a regression from the diplomatic and political advances made in the era of globalism.
The America First policy is an extension of political isolationism that aims to prioritize American interests above international commitments – a distinctly inward-looking nationalistic approach. It carries undertones of unilateralism and protectionism, intending to safeguard domestic interests, job markets, and the economy.
However, eminent historians argue that such isolationist policies could inadvertently risk national security. This viewpoint considers the interconnectedness of the modern world, where global affairs significantly impact national ones. The idea of absolute isolation remaining unscathed in contemporary times appears implausible in an era characterized by total globalization.
Critically, the America First policy presents a significant deviation from the post-Second World War American policy structure. Formerly seen as a global leader, the United States actively participated in international diplomacy, capitalizing on its soft power to influence global affairs positively. But the shift towards protectionism and unilateralism undermines American influence, reduces its ability to address global issues collectively, and hinders cooperation with allies.
Moreover, critics argue that this inward focus can result in multiple new threats, including an increased risk of conflict. In the past, isolationist policies have failed to prevent military confrontations. In the early stages of both World Wars, despite the U.S.’s initial non-intervention stance, the country was eventually drawn into these global conflicts.
The lack of active engagement in solving global crises and unchecked assertiveness of potential adversaries could create a volatile geopolitical landscape. This could leave the U.S. vulnerable to unwelcome surprises and threats, risking a potential multi-front war. By retreating from global initiatives and alliances, the United States may lose its ability to shape world events, ultimately becoming a spectator rather than a hands-on participant in world affairs.
According to eminent historians, the U.S. could find itself embroiled in a comprehensive and complicated network of conflicts due to its policy alterations. By pulling back from its international commitments, the country could inadvertently demonstrate a willingness to tolerate potential adversaries’ assertiveness. This may embolden them to act more aggressively, thereby threatening to destabilize international peace and security.
The handling of primary geopolitical rivals like Russia and China is another area of concern raised by these historians. The shift towards a more nationalistic policy could potentially alienate allies yet strengthen adversaries. For instance, if the U.S. retreats from Southeast Asia, the power vacuum left would likely be filled by China, further consolidating its influence in the region.
Similarly, the abandonment of multilateral treaties like the Paris Agreement on climate change under the America First strategy also raised eyebrows globally. Trust amongst allies and partners might shake as the United States retreats, making future coordination, negotiation, or collective action difficult. It could also push other nations to band together independently, diluting American influence and potentially establishing a new global order.
In sum, while the America First policy may have been established to protect American interests, it seems to have inadvertently exposed the country to potential threats. According to the learned perspective of eminent historians, the policy could lead the United States into multi-front wars while reducing its global influence, endangering national security in the long run.
