The United States has had a long history of isolationism, the idea of remaining aloof from international trade and politics and focusing on its own interests. This trend was broken with the US involvement in World War I and World War II, but we must not kid ourselves; the United States’ involvement in international affairs are for sensationalizing problems that are pertinent to its own internal issues or agenda, and all in hopes of self-preservation.
Many conflicts that the United States has involved itself with were because of a forced interaction or defending its ideology or position. The most obvious examples in recent history include the involvement in World War II and Vietnam War. US involvement in World War II was prompted by the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan, a move that was not the only reason, but it was the tipping point because a personal blow was taken against the country. There was an immediate reaction because the conflict came much closer to the isolated continent than any other point so far, and it was a reason to come together to action. The war went into the Pacific, and the US island hopped to exact their revenge, ending with the horrendous use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was a narrative to fill, a whole country coming together to defeat the forces of evil ideology threatening their freedom but more importantly, physical safety.
Another infamous involvement in political affairs was in the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, and eventual involvement in the Vietnam War. This was because Ngo was deemed unfit to resist the Vietcong and communist rule of the country. Therefore, the coup and assasination supported by the US government was for nothing but to defend the idea of Capitalism and slowing the global spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. Ngo was deemed unfit, and was replaced with a leader who could resist communism and not fall as easily to the Vietcong’s control. You can look back on this conflict and ask yourself who it was really benefiting. The US obviously did not want to be involved, and the attack devastated Vietnam with war for years. It was a war said to be protecting freedom of thought and ideology, but to what point is the fight not worth the cost to defend an idea in a completely different culture and politics over 8,000 miles away? How many protests does it take to admit defeat to keep an ideology, and what does that say about the value of the conflict if a country’s own people grew restless of the cause?
The United States was defending its global position in the world with these conflicts, and although the age of isolationism is long over, this country still remains distant and puts certain issues on a pedestal when it adds to a narrative that pushes its own agenda.
The United States and its population would take advantage of individual rights and defending them, using this message as a facade to the greater issue at hand: defending capitalism. The US and its citizens love to adopt different issues under countries of different names so they can push a slyer agenda below the table. It never mattered if it was Vietnam or Korea or Guatemala or Honduras. It was an excuse to justify their wants and to be in control of these countries, or to keep tabs and ensure they are “stable.”
We can see some of the hypocrisies when it comes to immigrants from Latin America fleeing a humanitarian crisis. There was extreme pushback when Honduran refugees came to the US border in 2018. There was of course support to countries in Latin America when they were far away and the US could deliver support or a political uprising at an arm’s reach, but when it came to letting in people who needed direct help, there was not the same support. It reality, the US and its involvement in these politics only worsened some of these situations.
In the United States, acts of Xenophobia are still committed against those from Asian decent from an association to corona virus. This showed the true nastiness of emotions towards those who are viewed as others or marked as the cause of tragedy, even if there is no association. It is unbased blaming and anger being let out in a racist way. America’s own identity at home is that of a melting pot, but it continually denies access to certain people because of stereotypes and fear of job security and crime, when many cases are those of a family looking to live their life.
We could see the same facade and performative nature of people in this country during the Black Lives Matter protests and death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. People would post black screens to show their support of the movement and how they stood in solidarity, but for many there was a societal pressure to prove that one cared about the movement and were in support of their ideas. There was indeed no harm in showing support through posts with facts and information to keep people informed, but the support stopped there for many in America while the more serious offenses continued.
When a true act of justice and defense of rights occurs, it should not be earmarked with other agendas. It is fair and just when the sole motivator is helping people. Therefore, it can not be decided in a courtroom by a majority party, for there are too many conflicts of interest and constituents to please in making big decisions of humanitarian aid or support. It is about the small scale, grass roots organization who really know the issue firsthand and can tell their story to a larger crowd. It does not need to be the whole crowd, but just enough to garner support to make a difference. Often times politics can make the fulfillment of a basic need like running in circles, crossing out their own promises and forgetting what the real issue is at hand. It is not fair to the people in need who are having their very real and very scary issues treated as a game of politics. They are just people asking for help, and maybe the US can offer financial gain, but it is about a shift in mindset among the population to receive the emotional care they need.
Links:
Who overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem? – Colors-NewYork.com
ASEAN’s Limited Role in Solving the Rohingya Crisis – The Diplomat
A Century of U.S. Intervention Created the Immigration Crisis | by Mark Tseng-Putterman | Medium
Michael,
This is a common choice for a topic, but you put an interesting spin on it. I especially like how you link some current events, like the George Floyd protests and the hate acts toward the Asian communities (at the beginning of the pandemic), to this portion of the Vietnam War, an event in history that we are acquainted with, but otherwise distant from, because of how long ago it was. I also think you bring up some very valid points concerning the US’s foreign policy stance, and how fluid it is. At some points in history the US jumps right into fights (like in Vietnam, but more often than not, the US stays isolated from the crossfire, like in the Rwandan genocide crisis. I think that you are right in saying that if the US gets involved in something, it needs to not have agendas pulling the strings, which is a hard truth for the American government especially to swallow.
This blog was very intriguing to see the role the U.S. has played in not only national politics but world politics across the years. The paragraphs on WW1 and WW2 that reflected how America wants to be seen as the strong, powerful good guy who defeats evil reminded me of popular propaganda during those times which used dramatized characterizations of Hitler or Germany to create a negative correlation. On the other hand, this propaganda always showed America as the saviors. As the progression of time in the post continued to the Vietnam War, I think it was very important that you included this since this War was very controversial and unpopular among the people, yet America projected their purpose as fighting against Communism. I especially enjoyed how you brought the concept all the way to current pertinent issues like immigration and Black Lives Matter. This chronological take shows how this has been a topic of importance for many years in America, and it is still an issue today. Lastly, I thought the images you included were very powerful and thought-provoking. This blog post truly has been questioning America’s involvement in world affairs and their motivation behind certain actions.