When it comes to the success of the United States, the isolationist ideology that has dominated the country for over 200 years can be said to have contributed greatly. Until now, the United States has become the dominant force in the world order, and there are still people who miss this path. Even some people believe that Trump’s policies are leading the United States back to the era of isolationism.
However, people know very little about what isolationism is and why the American version of isolationism has been successful.
One important manifestation is that many people nowadays envision a Chinese version of isolationism, which is to achieve self-development without actively changing the world order.
However, this idea is a great misunderstanding of isolationism.
Firstly, not all countries have the conditions to implement isolationism. For example, Poland’s geographical location in Europe does not allow it to be “isolated”. The prerequisite for isolationism is to have a barrier that can ensure one’s own strategic security.
Secondly, in order to establish this strategic security barrier, isolationism does not simply emphasize neutrality and defense, but rather has a strong offensive nature.
For example, one of the earliest formal expressions of American isolationism comes from the Monroe Doctrine that emerged in the early 19th century. It advocates that the American continent and the European continent belong to the New World and the Old World respectively. As the leader of the New World, the United States will recognize and not interfere with the existing European order, nor will it interfere in the internal affairs of European countries.
This part of the proposition is often regarded as the historical source of American isolationist thinking. Looking at this part alone, isolationism is indeed a defensive strategy.

However, it cannot be viewed separately from Monroe’s other proposition that all efforts by European powers to control or influence the New World will also be seen as a threat to American security.
In other words, American isolationism is a security strategy that combines offense and defense. Therefore, at that time, when the Monroe Doctrine was first proposed, it was not accepted by the great powers and was seen as a challenge to the world order.
In order to achieve this vision, James Monroe, the fifth president of the United States and the last president to be served by the founding father, not only did not avoid pressure from European powers, but also actively engaged in multilateral diplomatic activities and intervened in the affairs of Latin American countries.
This period of American history still has positive implications for China today.

1. Glorious isolation
   At the beginning of the 19th century, looking across the Americas, Americans had rarely met an enemy: Napoleon’s empire had collapsed and he had completely bid farewell to the Americas; The British Empire restored peace with the United States and shifted the focus of overseas colonization to India, which was easier to govern; The Spanish Empire is on the brink of death, and the entire Latin American continent is in turmoil. Emerging independent countries continue to emerge, which is a great opportunity for the United States to intervene.
   After James Monroe came to power in 1817, he first set his sights on Florida in the south. At this time, Spain still occupies this area and has repeatedly rejected American purchase plans.
   So, Monroe used the excuse of suppressing the rebellious indigenous armed forces and sent the US Army to fight without declaring war, taking advantage of the opportunity to occupy the capital of Florida, Pensacola, and effectively controlling the entire area.
   Subsequently, Monroe dispatched envoys to negotiate with Spain and once again discussed the purchase matter. Seeing that the United States had already occupied the area, Spain was forced to accept a $5 million offer and abandon Florida.
   Meanwhile, inspired by the French Revolution, the independence wars of various countries in South America began. Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Mexico and other countries successively declared independence from Spain and quickly sent envoys to Washington, demanding formal recognition.

Due to negotiations between the United States and Spain on the Florida issue at the time, Monroe did not respond immediately. However, shortly after the negotiations ended, Monroe immediately recognized these countries.
The United States claims to support efforts to develop a new world fundamentally different from European countries and the ’cause of human freedom’.
In January 1821, then Secretary of State Adams proposed that the American continent should close its doors to the Old World to prevent European interference.
This idea was later adopted by Monroe and became an important part of the Monroe Doctrine.
However, Monroe was well aware that the United States lacked a strong navy and army. In order to gain the attention of European powers, Monroe first managed to gain the recognition of the British Empire for this proposition.
In October 1823, the US Ambassador to London, Richard Rush, communicated with the British Foreign Secretary, Canning, and reached a common position on the South American issue, not supporting European countries’re colonization of the area.
The reason why Britain supports the United States’ proposition has two main motives: firstly, Britain’s core interest is to consolidate its maritime hegemony, so it is also happy to see the complete decline of the Spanish Empire, and unwilling for European countries such as France and Germany to strengthen their power by controlling the Americas; Secondly, at this time, the “free trade policy” was popular in the UK, opposing protectionism and breaking away from the imperial system. The American countries could provide a market for the rapidly growing British industrial products.
It can be said that the emergence of the “Monroe Doctrine” perfectly catered to two needs: first, the newly independent American countries had a desire to pursue autonomy; Secondly, the world hegemon at that time, Britain, had the need to use this to suppress other European countries.
Of course, the United States is not pursuing the “cause of human freedom” as it claims, but rather to facilitate its expansionism in the Americas.
One of the strong evidence is that the United States and Britain were prepared to issue a joint statement on the status of the Americas, but Secretary of State Adams expressed strong opposition, believing that the bilateral statement might limit the subsequent expansion of the United States, and worried that the British also had the motivation to control the Americas.
So, the original joint statement became a unilateral statement by the United States, and Britain tacitly agreed.
However, this also weakens the effectiveness of the statement to a certain extent.
After Prince Metternich of Austria learned of this statement, he felt very angry and privately commented that it was a “new form of resistance” by the United States against Europe, which would reignite the desires of all conspirators.
At that time, the United States did not have the strength to expel the influence of all European powers from the New World. In fact, in the decades following this statement, the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom was the only force maintaining it.
However, the Monroe Doctrine became the guiding principle of American foreign policy for over a hundred years. It can be said that the entire process of the rise of the United States is the process of turning the Monroe Doctrine from a slogan and principle into a reality.
At the same time, the United States also adhered to the constraints of the Monroe Doctrine and maintained the isolationist principle of non-interference in European affairs. It was not until the British Empire could no longer control the world situation and actively invited the United States to leave that American isolationism fulfilled its historical mission.
After reviewing the historical context of American isolationism, we will now examine two important questions: first, whether this process is reversible for the United States and whether it can return to the era of isolationism; Secondly, for the current China, what is the reference significance of the experience of the United States.

2. Return to isolation
   Firstly, it needs to be clarified that the isolationism of the United States is inseparable from the Monroe Doctrine strategy. More precisely, isolationism is a component of Monroe’s diplomatic strategy towards Europe.
   While emphasizing the neutrality and defensive nature of the Monroe Doctrine towards European strategy, people often overlook its obvious expansionist and hegemonic color towards the Americas.
   Isolationism is by no means an ostrich strategy that allows any country to build a strategic encirclement around itself and remain indifferent.
   The prerequisite for the United States to promise not to interfere in European affairs is not to allow European countries to interfere in American affairs. If there were no such prerequisite, so-called isolationism would only become a self deception of “covering one’s ears and stealing a bell”.
   Because if a country’s diplomatic strategy cannot guarantee its own security, it cannot become a long-term security strategy.
   Secondly, as a strategy that combines offense and defense, isolationism actually requires a strong strategic support force.
   From the early 19th century to the mid-20th century, American isolationism can be divided into two stages, with the dividing point being the Spanish American War of 1898.

Before 1898, the strategic support force for American isolationism was actually the Royal Fleet of Britain. It was not until 1898, after the United States achieved victory in the direct conflict with the Spanish Empire, that its own military strength was sufficient to support the strategy of “regardless of the raging war in Europe, the scenery of the Americas is unique here”.
However, it was precisely when the comprehensive national strength of the United States began to meet or even gradually exceed the needs of the Monroe Doctrine that the idea of intervening in European affairs and participating in the struggle for dominance of the world order began to emerge domestically. Soon after, the historical event of the United States joining World War I and actively participating in the Paris Peace Conference emerged.
However, the Pearl Harbor incident truly broke the isolationist tendencies within the United States. Since then, the American security concept has changed significantly, believing that only by opening aircraft carriers to every corner of the world can national security be guaranteed. Globalism has since replaced isolationism.
Until the emergence of Trump, a debate began to become an important issue in American society: Did the United States gain or lose from such large-scale intervention in global affairs?
Moreover, Trump’s “America First” proposal is not his invention, but rather a slogan used by the Republican Party during the era of isolationism to promote “take care of yourself, do not interfere in European affairs”.
Trump believes that “globalism” has allowed other countries, including allies, to continue taking advantage of the United States. He has repeatedly threatened to withdraw military bases and even withdraw from NATO, which seems to conform to the characteristics of isolationism.
However, an important difference is that traditional isolationists view “not participating in global affairs” as a long-term strategy that can fundamentally protect the United States; Trump sees “whether or not to participate in world affairs” as a business and is more concerned about what the United States has gained from such participation.
For example, many of Trump’s complaints about allies such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea are not based on concerns that they risk dragging the United States into war. His complaint is that these allies have not paid enough for the protection of the United States.
If allies meet Trump’s demands, from the perspective of a businessman, the wiser course of action for the United States would be to continue raising protection fees and using the deployment of US troops as a form of revenue generation, rather than withdrawing them.
If allies do not meet Trump’s demands, then the preferred solution for the United States is not to withdraw US troops, but to find ways to prove that US protection is indispensable.
Similarly, in other fields, as long as Trump’s main motivation is for economic purposes, withdrawing from globalization and returning to isolationism will not be Trump’s goal, but only a tool to exchange more short-term benefits from other countries by threatening to withdraw from “globalization”. This is the fundamental difference between Trump and traditional isolationists.
Of course, Trump’s actions will harm America’s global leadership position.
The original role of the United States was to provide free military protection, establish the image of a “global police”, and then obtain implicit benefits through rent-seeking; Under Trump’s rule, global police may transform into a ‘global mafia’, charging a protection fee on top of hidden profits. On the surface, the immediate profits of gangs may be higher, but the cost of governing gangs is much higher than that of police.
Overall, we should not expect Trump to lead the United States back to isolationism in a possible second term; On the contrary, the activities of the United States overseas will continue, and even become more active in certain hotspots in order to gain more short-term benefits.
In the long run, Trump’s approach will accelerate the decline of American hegemony; However, in the short term, the pressure we are under is likely to increase.

3. Inspiration from China
   Throughout the history of isolationism in the United States, a profound insight is that we are easily influenced by cultural backgrounds when understanding certain basic concepts in the West, resulting in serious deviations.
   Influenced by the unification of dynasties in ancient Chinese history, we easily accept the concept of “internal factors as the main factor, external factors as auxiliary”, which means that the priority of internal affairs is always unconditionally higher than external affairs. As long as internal problems are solved well, external problems will naturally be solved.
   This empirical rule is indeed applicable to most dynasties in ancient China. This is because the Central Plains dynasties occupied the most abundant agricultural resources in East Asia, with plateaus and deserts to the west and north, and oceans to the east and south.
   Most of the time, as long as the Central Plains dynasties had strong national strength, they could form a comprehensive advantage over the border regimes in terms of geography, economy, military, culture, and other aspects, creating a situation of using the big to control the small and forcing the weak.
   However, the rise of Western civilization has created a world order model that is difficult for us to understand, which is “using small to control large” and “using the sea to control land”.
   The British Isles, with their tiny territories, controlled colonies that were a hundred times their own territory, known as the Empire of Never Setting Sun; Although the United States has a vast territory, it is still a corner of the world and can use the entire world as a colony for its financial capital.
   And countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, which have successively taken control of the world order, can solve internal crises by shifting the problem to large external colonies.
   For such a global empire, the distinction between internal and external is no longer clear. When internal problems arise, a region thousands of miles away can be used as a solution; Similarly, if an external problem cannot be solved well, it may also interrupt the process of internal reform.
   Even more so, as the external sphere of influence of the empire far exceeds its own territorial area, external affairs are the core affairs of the empire, just as in the United States, the Secretary of State in charge of international affairs is usually regarded as the top ranked minister of the State Department.
   When we try to learn from the advanced experience of Western countries, we sometimes overlook the historical context of the West, causing significant misunderstandings.
   For example, in the eyes of traditional isolationists in the United States, some of the viewpoints put forward by Chinese isolationists are very difficult to understand, such as the idea of unlimited tolerance towards foreign countries in exchange for time and space to solve internal problems. This idea actually presupposes that once we solve internal problems, external threats will be self defeating.
   However, in the eyes of Westerners, as long as domestic problems can be solved, why should they be divided into external or internal? It is even natural to prioritize solving problems through external means. This is also the reason why Trump often talks about “China”.
   Furthermore, we typically view Trump’s “blaming China” approach as a means of “shifting tensions”. In our view, the real problem with the United States lies domestically. We assume in our hearts that even the elites in the United States know this, and playing the ‘blame game’ is just a temporary means of diverting the attention of the domestic public.
   But in fact, this is a typical Chinese way of thinking. Our culture places great emphasis on ‘internal factors’, and whenever we encounter problems, we are accustomed to’ looking for reasons within ourselves’. In fact, a considerable number of American elites genuinely believe that the “China issue” is the key to resolving domestic conflicts in the United States, rather than just being used as a temporary scarecrow to attract firepower.
   Of course, this idea of “supplementing the outside with the inside” may not be correct, but it cannot be denied that it has indeed led to the dominance of Western civilization for hundreds of years.
   In a closed system, the total chaos of the system can only increase over time and cannot decrease. This is one of the fundamental laws of our universe, the law of entropy increase.
   In ancient China, various dynasties attached great importance to internal reforms, from the feudal system to the county system, from the hereditary system, the imperial examination system to the imperial examination system. However, no matter how internal changes occurred, dynastic changes were still inevitable, resulting in a cyclical process. This may also be a manifestation of the law of entropy increase.
   The rise of Western civilization has opened up a new model, which suggests that regimes can, like living organisms, temporarily restore internal order and extend their lifespan by preying on other life forms.
   From the perspective of the Chinese, this is certainly a sad path, but as far as historical experience is concerned, human beings have few choices.
   The only hope for humanity is not to roll and die within the solar system until interstellar space technology is developed.