foreign policy us essay

United States Foreign Policy Analytical Essay

Introduction, united states foreign policy, usa foreign policy during (1815-1941), usa foreign policy during (1941-1989), usa foreign policy during (1989-present), works cited.

Several countries today have established legal frameworks that determine how they relate with other nations. The United States of America has a comprehensive foreign policy which governs its relationship with other countries. “Since independence, the economy of U.S. has been flourishing and it is today one of the most developed countries in the world” (Hastedt 65).

This has given it a dominant position in the world political arena and it has also influenced how it deals with other nations. “The diplomatic affairs of this country are always under the guidance of the secretary of the State” (Carter 82). However, final decisions on diplomatic affairs are only made by the president.

America’s foreign policy has always been shaped in such away that it favors its interests. It protects its corporations and other commercial organizations from any unfair treatment and competition (Kaufman 15). This has always been done to ensure that no country challenge its economic position.

U.S. has been using its power to suppress other nations that may be thinking of emerging as its competitor. For example it checked the influence of U.S.S.R. In order to continue dominating many countries, the U.S. government keeps on extending its authority and power over many nations.

“It has achieved this by simply influencing the social-economic and political institutions of some countries which are vulnerable to political influences” (Carter 130). Such practices are prevalent in countries which are poor and can not sustain themselves economically.

”Peace, prosperity, power, and principle,” have always acted as the guiding principles of U.S. foreign policy, and its interests revolve around them (Hastedt 29). The U.S. government has been striving to maintain these values, but the only thing that has been changing is the prevailing conditions which influence the manner they are achieved (Hastedt 30). We can therefore examine the foreign policies of U.S in the following phases.

America came up with the policy of “isolation” after the end of its revolutionary war. According to this policy, US did not engage in conflict resolution programs and it always remained impartial whenever some European countries had a conflict with each other (Carter 101). For example, this was demonstrated during the First World War and it continued until the beginning of the Second World War. The main interest of US during the 19 th century was to develop its economy and this influenced how it conducted its diplomatic activities with other nations.

It forged trade ties with other countries which were ready to do business with it. In addition to these, it also engaged in building its territory through bringing more territories under its control. For example in 1819 it managed to conquer Florida; in 1845 it brought Texas under its control and the Russian Empire agreed to sell Alaska to US in 1867.

Imperialism was also partially practiced by U.S. “Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington’s farewell address; these included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all countries” (Carter 74). The US government in many cases declined to engage in signing treaties. For example it refused to be part of the “League of Nations” (Kaufman 67).

There was a remarkable increase in U.S. engagement in peace initiatives during the post World War One, and this formed its key agenda in foreign relations. President Wilson came up with guidelines that were used in ending the First World War. The European powers had a meeting in Paris in 1919 in which they discussed the ways of solving the disputes which had previously led to war among them. “The Versailles Treaty was signed by the countries that attended the conference but U.S. government did not” (Hastedt 120).

This is because the US government felt that some of the members had contradicted some of steps which governed the treaty. U.S. also managed to carry out the disarmament program successfully in 1920s and it also helped Germany to reconstruct its economy which had been ruined by over engagement in war. U.S. tried to continue pursuing the policy of “isolation” during 1930s.

However, President Roosevelt joined the Allied powers during the Second World War and they managed to win it. Japan was forcefully removed from China by U.S. and they also stopped its possible invasion of the Soviet Union. “Japan was greatly humiliated and it reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy” (Carter 190).

The economy of U.S greatly improved after the second war, while the other European countries grappled with economic challenges. It was now one of the greatest countries and its power and influence was felt in many countries.

The emergence of the cold war in the post war period led to the split of the world into two spheres. These two spheres were dominated by Soviet Union and U.S. Non Aligned Movement was developed as a result of this process. The Cold War period only came to an end towards the end of the 20 th century. “A policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion and a series of proxy wars were fought with mixed results” (Kaufman 117).

The Soviet Union completely collapsed after the U.S. war against Iraq (Gulf War). America joined this war in order to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait so that peace and stability could be restored in that country. After the war, U.S. shifted its policy from Iraq because it was trying to be a threat to its interests in the region of Middle East (Carter 195).

America is still having an important role in world politics. Nonetheless, it is facing much opposition and competition from other countries like China. Its dominant role and influence has gone down and many countries from Africa are currently shifting their diplomatic relationships to the East. “U.S. foreign policy is characterized still by a commitment to free trade, protection of its national interests, and a concern for human rights”. A group of political scientists contend that the super powers seem to be having similar socio economic and political interests, and if they can find a good opportunity to pursue them together then we shall have a prosperous future.

Carter, Ralph. Contemporary cases in U.S. foreign policy: from terrorism to trade. Washington D.C: Press College, 2010.

Hastedt, Glenn. American foreign policy. New York: Longman, 2010.

Kaufman, Joyce. A concise history of U.S. foreign policy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield , 2009.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 16). United States Foreign Policy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/

"United States Foreign Policy." IvyPanda , 16 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'United States Foreign Policy'. 16 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "United States Foreign Policy." January 16, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

1. IvyPanda . "United States Foreign Policy." January 16, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "United States Foreign Policy." January 16, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

• Environmental Issues: The US Aiding for Other Countries
• Diplomatic Protocols and Privileges
• Vienna Convention: Diplomatic & Consular Relations
• US Military Spending
• Nuclear Diplomatic Relations
• Diplomatic History of Australia
• Cuba, Iraq, and Sunni Islam: Challenges to the US
• Diplomatic Immunity
• The War in Iraq and the U.S. Invasion
• US Progress in Freedom, Equality and Power Since Civil War
• Current Conflicts in Sudan
• Do the Benefits of Globalization Outweigh the Costs?
• Global Conflict Likelihood
• Afghanistan: The Way to Go
• International Search and Rescue Efforts

U.S. Foreign Policy between the Wars

Written by: John E. Moser, Ashland University

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the similarities and differences in attitudes about the nation’s proper role in the world

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative to allow students to explore the United States’ pursuit of a unilateral foreign policy during the period between WWI and WWII.

For a long time, historians believed that, thanks to the refusal of the U.S. Senate to join the League of Nations, the United States then entered a period of “isolationism” that lasted from the 1920s to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Few believe this today. Although it might fairly be argued that the United States sought to isolate itself from world affairs in the early to mid-1930s – primarily as the result of the Great Depression – the Republican administrations of the 1920s were actively engaged in managing problems abroad.

One international matter in which the United States took a leading role was naval disarmament. This was a cause that had widespread political support. Democrats tended to follow the Wilsonian tradition of regarding large armies and navies as a threat to peace. Republicans were eager to reduce spending (and taxes) and saw the navy as a prime place to cut. The Harding administration, therefore, organized an international conference in Washington, DC, in December 1921. Masterminded by Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, the Washington Conference yielded three treaties that helped preserve peace in East Asia and the Pacific region for the next 10 years. In the Four-Power Pact, signed by Britain, France, Japan, and the United States, each nation agreed to respect the others’ island possessions in the Pacific. The Five-Power Pact, which included the preceding powers plus Italy, set limits on the numbers and types of warships each signatory could possess. Finally, in the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922, the aforementioned five nations, joined by China, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal, pledged to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China.

In 1922, delegates from nine countries gathered in Washington, DC, to discuss naval disarmament.

The war had radically altered the position of the United States in the global economy. In 1914, it had been the world’s largest debtor, but by 1920, it was the largest creditor. Postwar Europe was the most important market for American exports. Europe was also crying out for American capital, and Wall Street banks were prepared to offer it, as long as conditions appeared stable enough to bring a return on their investments. American banks and corporations thus had a strong interest in helping Europe get back on its feet.

When Germany was suffering from hyperinflation in 1924, an American banker and Harding administration official named Charles Dawes headed a commission that sought to address the situation. His solution, which became known as the Dawes Plan, lent Germany millions of dollars from New York banks, enabling Germany to pay reparations to the former Allies as mandated by the Versailles Treaty and to rebuild and modernize its heavy industry. The German economy quickly turned around, and the second half of the decade saw a general improvement in the economies of the other countries of Western Europe as well. Four years later, when the German government sought to renegotiate its reparations payments, it was once again an American business executive – Owen Young, founder of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) – who was called in to broker a deal. The Young Plan reduced the total amount of reparations and established a payment plan by which the burden would be paid off over 58 years.

The burden of Germany’s war reparations, as portrayed in this U.S. editorial cartoon from c. 1921, showed a German man under an enormous amount of debt.

Most Americans remained opposed to any kind of formal commitment to other countries, particularly membership in the League of Nations or anything that looked like an alliance. Also, if the U.S. government had agreed to forgive the war debts of the former Allies, it is likely that Britain and France would have backed off on their demands for German reparations or at least reduced the burden considerably. As it was, collection of reparations was necessary if London and Paris were to make their own biannual debt payments. Moreover, European nations would have had an easier time recovering from the war if their products had had greater access to the U.S. market, but both Harding and Coolidge adhered to Republican orthodoxy by keeping tariffs high – even though U.S. exports to Europe during the 1920s exceeded imports by nearly a two-to-one margin. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that U.S. investment played a critical role in the postwar recovery. As President Coolidge boasted in 1925, “no positive and constructive accomplishment of the past five years compares with the support which America has contributed to the financial stability of the world.”

Millions of private citizens took a keen interest in global affairs in the 1920s, mostly through membership in one of the many peace organizations that proliferated in the country after World War I. Some of the more conservative groups, such as the World Peace Foundation, the League of Nations Association, and, most importantly, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, spent vast sums both at home and abroad, organizing conferences, publishing newsletters, and endowing libraries and university chairs in international relations both at home and abroad. Others had more radical reputations, such as the National Council for the Prevention of War, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. These organizations frequently collaborated with one another, with larger groups such as the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), and with similar organizations abroad to promote their view that the experience of World War I must never be repeated.

Members of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom protested to demand an end to war after World War I. (credit: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Records, Swarthmore College Peace Collection)

One specific idea that captured the imagination of the peace movement was the “outlawry of war,” the belief that war should be prohibited under international law. Indeed, by the end of the decade, the movement to outlaw war had become popular enough to be written into an international treaty. The Kellogg-Briand Pact had its origins in a proposal by French Prime Minister Aristide Briand for a bilateral agreement with the United States in which each country pledged never to go to war with the other. The U.S. secretary of State, Frank Kellogg, feared that such a deal would look too much like a formal alliance in the eyes of the Senate, so he proposed that other nations be invited to join in making the same pledge. Fifteen countries signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact on August 27, 1928, promising to “condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.” An additional 47 nations signed on in the following months.

But even as the world agreed to outlaw war, the spirit of internationalism on which Kellogg-Briand rested was beginning to fade. In mid-1928, American financiers were increasingly turning away from foreign investment in favor of buying stocks on Wall Street. Germany, now cut off from its primary source of capital, fell into recession before the end of that year. Similar downturns were evident in the United States and Great Britain by the middle of 1929, and after the stock market crash of October 1929, it was clear that the world was entering a period of economic distress.

The near-collapse of the global economy undermined the basis for internationalism. In July 1930, President Herbert Hoover approved the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which increased import duties to their highest levels since 1830. America’s main trading partners quickly retaliated with new tariffs of their own, and by 1933, international commerce had come to a virtual standstill. In Europe, high unemployment led to the rise of extremist political parties on the right and the left. Japan, meanwhile, sought to solve its economic problems by invading Manchuria (part of China) in 1931, in clear violation of the Nine-Power Treaty and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The Hoover administration refused to recognize the conquest of Manchuria as legitimate, but it did nothing more. Over the next several years, Americans abandoned the hope of abolishing war. The critical questions now were when and where the next major war would break out, and how to ensure that the United States would remain neutral when it did.

Review Questions

1. During the 1920s the United States participated in world affairs in all the following ways except

• undertaking foreign investment
• joining the League of Nations
• attending international conferences
• signing disarmament treaties

2. Although the United States remained outside the League of Nations, it did attempt to maintain world peace through all the following except

• hosting the Washington Naval Conference
• cosponsoring the Kellogg-Briand Pact
• approving the Hawley-Smoot Tariff
• promoting the Dawes Plan

3. The Four-Power Treaty was related to

• limiting the size of various world powers’ navies
• ensuring the territorial integrity of China
• easing German reparations from World War I
• respecting territorial rights in the Pacific Ocean

4. As part of their pro-business stance, the three Republican presidents of the 1920s were able to maintain

• free trade and freedom of the seas for all nations
• low tariffs between the United States and its allies and high tariffs on Germany
• low tariffs for all imports
• high tariffs for all imports

5. The Kellogg-Briand Pact

• outlawed all offensive war
• forgave Germany’s remaining war debts
• limited the size of navies around the world
• maintained the United States’ non-membership in the League of Nations

6. During the period immediately after World War I, the United States could be described as a

• global super power
• country that went from being a great debtor nation to a great creditor nation
• world peace-keeping force
• nation that isolated itself from European affairs

Free Response Questions

• Describe several ways in which the United States contributed to world peace during the 1920s.
• Explain the main objectives of U.S. foreign policy during the 1920s.
• Compare U.S. foreign policy during the 1920s with the foreign policy of the Washington Administration (1789-1797).

AP Practice Questions

“ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means. ARTICLE III The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington. This Treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at Washington and the Treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as; between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto.”

Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928

1. Which of the following most directly contributed to the creation of the treaty excerpted here?

• The building of an empire that began during the Spanish-American War
• Continued European colonization in the Americas
• The devastation of World War I
• Threats of Soviet aggression in eastern Europe

2. The United States’ agreement to sign the treaty excerpted here most directly illustrates a foreign policy that

• called for total isolation of the United States from world affairs
• allowed U.S. diplomats to initiate objectives that were successful in maintaining world peace
• gave the United States a role in world affairs without membership in the League of Nations
• permitted the United States to unilaterally maintain world peace

3. Which of the following actions best illustrates the United States’ adherence to the treaty excerpted here?

• Hosting the Washington Disarmament Conference
• Issuing a policy of refusing to recognize states created by aggression
• Resigning from the League of Nations
• Rejecting the Treaty of Versailles

Primary Sources

Merrill, David and Thomas G. Paterson. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume 2: Since 1914 . Boston: Cengage, 2009.

Suggested Resources

Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776 . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Iriye, Akira. The New Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 3, The Globalizing of America, 1913-1945 . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Rosenberg, Emily. Spreading the American Dream . New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

You are using an internet browser that is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this website correctly. Learn more

Policy Papers

The Road to Taiwan’s 2024 Presidential Election

On January 13, 2024, the Republic of China, also known as “Nationalist China” and Taiwan, will hold its next presidential election. This will be the eighth direct election of a president in Taiwan, the first having been held in 1996. It will also be a contest that showcases the island’s changing identity politics, shifting political preferences, and potential security challenges. 

AFPC Iran Strategy Brief no. 14: How Israel Thinks About Iran’s Future

For Israel, the Islamic Republic of Iran represents both a cardinal security challenge and an existential danger. The country’s current clerical regime is estimated to be connected to some “80 percent” of the contemporary security problems confronting the Jewish state.[1] These include not only Iran’s increasingly mature nuclear program, but also its extensive sponsorship of extremist proxies throughout the Mideast, as well as the radical expansionist ideology that continues to animate the regime in Tehran.

The Imperative for United States Engagement in a Global Space Debris Cleanup Program

The United States should proactively engage with other nations and initiate a comprehensive program to clean up the space debris problem.

China’s Space Ambitions

Assessing China’s space program is vital to understanding how investments in space add to a country’s comprehensive national power.

The Starship Singularity

Starship, due to its reusability, size, and power, will dramatically improve access to low Earth orbit that will greatly support the expansion of public-and private-sector activity in space.

The Neutrality Act of 1939: a Pivot in American Foreign Policy

This essay about the Neutrality Act of 1939, also known as the “Cash and Carry” law, examines its role in American foreign policy during the early stages of World War II. It explores how the Act allowed for the sale of arms to belligerent nations under strict conditions, marking a shift from the United States’ previous stance of strict non-intervention. The legislation aimed to aid allies while keeping the U.S. out of direct conflict, reflecting a compromise between isolationist sentiments and the need to support democratic countries against Axis powers. The essay discusses the Act’s economic benefits for the U.S., its limitations, and its implications for American involvement in global conflicts. By analyzing the context and outcomes of the Neutrality Act of 1939, the essay sheds light on the complexities of neutrality and the evolving nature of U.S. foreign policy in response to global threats, ultimately foreshadowing greater American engagement in World War II.

How it works

The Neutrality Act of 1939, often denoted as the “Cash and Carry” decree, denoted a profound deviation in American foreign policy at the outset of World War II. This legislative measure, ratified in November of that epoch, epitomized the United States’ endeavor to uphold neutrality while acknowledging the burgeoning perils posed by the Axis powers. In contrast to antecedent statutes, the 1939 Act sanctioned the vending of arms and ancillary provisions to belligerent nations, contingent upon their disbursement in currency and autonomous transportation of the commodities.

This discourse delves into the milieu, repercussions, and ramifications of this pivotal decree, illuminating its reverberations on both the U.S. and the wider conflagration.

The edict arose from a labyrinthine international milieu and a profoundly isolationist ambiance within the U.S. Following the cataclysm of World War I, the American populace and policymakers were resolute in eschewing embroilment in another European conflagration. The Neutrality Acts of the mid-1930s germinated from this inclination, proscribing the vending of arms to warring factions and circumscribing American interactions with belligerents. Nonetheless, by 1939, the insufficiency of these measures became conspicuous as Nazi Germany’s bellicosity imperiled European equilibrium and democratic realms.

The “Cash and Carry” proviso was engineered to abet allies such as Britain and France sans directly embroiling the United States in the conflict. It constituted a concession between isolationists and proponents of greater succor to the Allies, endowing Roosevelt’s regime with the latitude to bolster nations combating tyranny sans deploying American forces. Economically, it also accrued benefits to the U.S., as it mandated disbursement in currency, thereby sidestepping the snares of loan defaults that had transpired subsequent to World War I.

However, the Neutrality Act of 1939 also harbored substantial constraints and inadvertent repercussions. Whilst it advantaged nations with maritime supremacy, notably Britain, it conferred scant deterrence upon Axis powers directly. The requisition for belligerents to convey commodities via their own vessels imperiled Allied ships to German U-boats, underscoring the Act’s incapacity to safeguard those it aspired to assist. Furthermore, the Act’s promulgation mirrored the burgeoning realization that the U.S. could not retain absolute detachment from global confrontations, presaging heightened involvement in international affairs.

The legacy of the Neutrality Act of 1939 serves as a testimonial to the vicissitudes of crafting foreign policy in a swiftly evolving world. It denoted a deviation from rigorous non-interventionism, acknowledging the moral and strategic imperative of buttressing democratic realms against fascist expansionism. Yet, it also underscored the constraints of neutrality as a precept when confronted with global menaces. The Act constituted a pivotal stride on the trajectory toward U.S. engagement in World War II, delineating the tautness between isolationist instincts and the exigencies of global stewardship.

In summation, the Neutrality Act of 1939 epitomizes a seminal juncture in the metamorphosis of American foreign policy. Its enactment unveiled the intricacies of upholding neutrality in an increasingly interlinked world and the arduous choices nations must confront when confronted with the dissemination of aggression and despotism. Through scrutinizing the milieu and repercussions of the “Cash and Carry” edict, we garner insights into the precarious equilibrium between isolationism and interventionism that has delineated U.S. engagement with the world for eons.

Cite this page

The Neutrality Act of 1939: A Pivot in American Foreign Policy. (2024, Apr 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-neutrality-act-of-1939-a-pivot-in-american-foreign-policy/

"The Neutrality Act of 1939: A Pivot in American Foreign Policy." PapersOwl.com , 1 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-neutrality-act-of-1939-a-pivot-in-american-foreign-policy/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Neutrality Act of 1939: A Pivot in American Foreign Policy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-neutrality-act-of-1939-a-pivot-in-american-foreign-policy/ [Accessed: 17 Apr. 2024]

"The Neutrality Act of 1939: A Pivot in American Foreign Policy." PapersOwl.com, Apr 01, 2024. Accessed April 17, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-neutrality-act-of-1939-a-pivot-in-american-foreign-policy/

"The Neutrality Act of 1939: A Pivot in American Foreign Policy," PapersOwl.com , 01-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-neutrality-act-of-1939-a-pivot-in-american-foreign-policy/. [Accessed: 17-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Neutrality Act of 1939: A Pivot in American Foreign Policy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-neutrality-act-of-1939-a-pivot-in-american-foreign-policy/ [Accessed: 17-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

A Small State Heavyweight? How Singapore Handles U.S.-China Rivalry

Singapore’s form of governance arguably gives the city-state more latitude in addressing U.S.-China competition than other Southeast Asian nations.

Wednesday, April 10, 2024 / By: Terence Lee, Ph.D.

Publication Type: Analysis

Editor’s Note: The following article is part of a new USIP essay series, “ Southeast Asia in a World of Strategic Competition .” The opinions expressed in these essays are solely those of the authors and do not represent USIP, or any organization or government.

Alice Ba pertinently observes in her introductory essay to this series that Southeast Asia has become a key arena in the ongoing U.S.-China rivalry; regional countries are under growing pressure to choose between the two powers. For Singapore, this competition has provoked a debate on the extent of agency in the conduct of the city-state’s foreign policy. Two perspectives have emerged in this regard.

The first contends that Singapore has little autonomy, reflecting the structural reality of small states portrayed in the ancient Greek Melian Dialogue : “… as the world goes … while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This view, which was best captured by former diplomat Kishore Mahbubani , suggests that because Singapore is small, it must behave like small states and “exercise discretion” and “be very restrained in commenting on matters involving great powers.” Mahbubani wrote these in 2017 in response to other Gulf states’ breaking off diplomatic relations with Qatar.

A second view expresses maximalist agency in Singapore’s foreign policy. Propounded by Bilahari Kausikan and other retired Singaporean diplomats, they insist Singapore has not been “cowed or limited by size or geography” or browbeaten and “meekly compliant to the major powers.”  Singapore has instead stood up for “its ideals and principles.”

These contrasting viewpoints raises a critical question: How much autonomy does Singapore wield in its foreign policy in this evolving great power competition?

Singapore’s Governance and U.S.-China Competition

If we view agency as the ability of a state to attain its preferred political and foreign policy preferences, and to respond independently to the actions or constraints imposed by others, Singapore has probably greater latitude than most other Southeast Asian states. Governance in Singapore has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) since 1959. The PAP has more than two-thirds presence in parliament and exercises extensive control over the country’s political, economic, social and cultural activities, including its electoral structures and processes. The PAP has avoided overt factionalism through a set of incentives and constraints institutionalized within the party and nationally. Decision-making, including foreign policy, is dominated by technocrats and the political elite , and insulated from public pressure.

The PAP’s political ascendancy allows Singapore to pursue foreign policies unencumbered.

First, to preserve the city-state’s security and sovereignty, Singapore has significantly increased its security cooperation with the United States. Singapore views the United States as indispensable to security and stability in the Indo-Pacific and backed the Obama administration’s rebalance to Asia policy. Since the end of U.S. bases in the Philippines, Singapore has been the anchor for forward U.S. presence in the region, which has been successively augmented over the years. The two countries signed the enhanced bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement in 2015 , and developed a United States-Singapore Strategic Partnership Dialogue “to strengthen cooperation on the range of bilateral, regional and global challenges under the U.S.-Singapore Strategic Partnership.”

Singapore relies on the United States for its advanced military hardware and training . The United States sells sophisticated weaponry through foreign military sales and direct commercial sales programs. Singaporean military personnel participate in training, exercises and professional military exchanges in places like Luke AFB, and Mountain Home AFB Idaho, where Singaporean F-16, AH-64D, and F-15SG pilots train alongside their U.S. counterparts. Pentagon research agencies, including the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Office of Naval Research Global, the Navy Medical Research Center-Asia and the Army International Technology Center-Pacific have offices in the republic and work with Singaporean counterparts on issues of shared military relevance.

Second, the PAP has enacted policies to boost Singapore’s status as a global trading and financial hub. Through low corporate tax rates and other pro-business incentives , Singapore has attracted significant inflows of foreign capital. The republic receives more than $244 billion direct U.S. investment, by far the largest single country investor , accounting for more than 20% of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in Singapore. In the manufacturing sector, U.S. FDI in Singapore is almost 50% more than all Asian investment in that industry. In financial and insurance services, U.S. investment is 60% larger than that of the European Union, which is the second largest investor in that sector. China is Singapore’s largest trading partner, and the city-state is its largest foreign investor. Singapore has seen an influx of affluent mainlanders moving their assets and setting up family offices in Singapore, believing the republic to be a safe haven .

Third, Singapore has cultivated closer ties with middle powers (Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea) and supported open multilateralism to enhance its prosperity and collective security. The republic has been prolific in concluding free trade agreements , several with middle powers and a key proponent of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity . 

Fourth, Singapore supports “ASEAN centrality” as a “life raft” amid troubled global times. At the May 2023 ASEAN Summit in Indonesia, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for greater economic integration and for ASEAN to be unified, to be cohesive, to be effective and to be central .

Significantly, these security, economic and multilateral arrangements have strengthened the PAP’s “ domestic sovereignty ” and increased its performance legitimacy. The ruling party’s legitimacy is premised on “ instrumental acquiescence ,” in which support for the government is premised on its ability to deliver security, political stability and acceptable material standards of living in exchange for the curtailment of certain civil liberties.

China’s Challenges to Singapore’s Sovereignty

However, because of its unique status as the only ethnic Chinese-majority state in Southeast Asia, Singapore faces distinctive challenges to its sovereignty. China, despite Singapore’s consistent denials, insists on referring to it as a “ Chinese country ” and regularly seeks to influence Singapore’s policy choices, using coercion and pressure .

In response to Singapore’s support for the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling which favored the Philippines, and its alleged attempt to include the ruling in the final document of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Venezuela in September 2016, General Jin Yinan , a senior People's Liberation Army advisor, said Singapore is “meddling in things that did not concern it,” and had to “pay the price for seriously damaging China’s interests.” As such it was “inevitable for China to strike back at Singapore, and not just on the public opinion front.” And because “Singapore has gone thus far, we have got to do something, be it retaliation or sanction. We must express our discontent.”

To this end, China exerted pressure on Singapore by detaining its armed forces’ armored Terrex vehicles in Hong Kong in November 2016 and uninviting Singapore’s prime minister to Chinese President Xi Jinping's inaugural Belt and Road summit in 2017.

Beijing has also sought to pressure Singapore’s ethnic Chinese population more directly. It does so through the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the Singapore Business Federation, by making it harder for businesses to get contracts, licenses and permits, especially in the real estate sector, where Singaporeans hold significant investments in China.

An important constituency China has focused on is ethnic-Chinese seniors, who tend to have a stronger affinity for the mainland. China’s appeals are directed toward supporting ethnic pride and Chinese nationalism, through clan and grassroots organizations, based on locality or kinship (surname). Of note is the China Cultural Center (Zhongguo Wenhua Zhongxin, 中国文化中心), or CCC, which was established in Singapore in 2012. The Singapore CCC promotes cultural activities and exchanges, teaching and training to create a common identity between Chinese China and Chinese Singapore.

Other vectors of influence include direct broadcasts from China Central Television (CCTV) and China Global Television Network (CGTN), both are widely available on Singapore cable TV and carry pro-Beijing and anti-U.S. narratives , and disinformation on social media .

More directly, China has employed espionage. Academic Huang Jing , then director of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy’s (LKYSPP) Center on Asia and Globalization, was deported after he was accused by the Ministry of Home Affairs of being “an agent of influence of a foreign country.” Ph.D. student Dickson Yeo , also from the LKYSPP, was jailed in the United States and subsequently issued a detention order under Singapore’s Internal Security Act, for acting as an illegal agent of China.

Singapore has attempted to mitigate China’s interference by passing the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill .

Key political office holders also assert the republic’s independence and emphasize the importance of upholding sovereignty. At the 2022 National Day Rally , Singapore’s equivalent of the State of the Union, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned Singaporeans to be vigilant about messages that are shared on social media and actively guard against hostile foreign influence.

“We need to ask ourselves: where do these messages come from, and what are their intentions? And are we sure we should share such messages with our friends? So please check the facts and do not accept all the information as truths [sic]. We must actively guard against hostile foreign influence operations, regardless of where they originate. Only then, can we safeguard the sovereignty and independence of our nation …”

Although the city-state is clear-eyed about its ability to alter the behavior of the two powers, it has tried to be an “ honest broker ” and conveyed its concerns about the rising tensions between Beijing and Washington.

Overall, as the United States and China contest for ascendancy in the region, Singapore has had the space to pursue its political and foreign policy preferences. Observers have termed this hedging — a strategy of not choosing between Washington and Beijing while maximizing gains from cooperating with both powers and avoiding confrontation.

Terence Lee, Ph.D. is a visiting associate professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University and an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore.

Related Publications

China’s Alternative Approach to Security Along the Mekong River

Tuesday, April 16, 2024

By: Narut Charoensri

Speaking about “the rise” or the “emerging role” of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) makes little sense these days. The country is no longer simply transforming in a major power, but rather has achieved a level of influence that many other major countries around the world perceive as a threat economically, politically and militarily.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Whither NATO at 75?

Thursday, April 11, 2024

By: Ambassador William B. Taylor ;   Mirna Galic

NATO marked its 75th anniversary last week at a celebration in Brussels. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has injected the alliance with new life and resolve, the 32-member collective security pact is also wrestling with its future in a world of growing great power competition. In 2022, NATO formally identified for the first time China as a challenge to its interests and collective security. As NATO continues to support Ukraine and look to future global challenges, it also has internal issues to address, ranging from individual member defense spending to the problems posed by the need for collective decision-making among 32 members.

Type: Question and Answer

Myanmar’s Collapsing Military Creates a Crisis on China’s Border

By: Jason Tower

Operation 1027 — an offensive launched in October 2023 by an alliance of three ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) against the military junta in Myanmar — has disrupted hundreds of forced labor scam syndicates operating under the protection of Myanmar’s army, dented the army’s image of invincibility and decimated the lucrative China-Myanmar border trade. A second operation launched on March 7 by another EAO in Kachin State has compounded China’s economic woes by adding to the impact on trade.

Why Africa’s Critical Minerals Are Key to U.S. National Security

Tuesday, April 9, 2024

By: Thomas P. Sheehy

A new USIP report emphasizes the importance of the United States government being engaged in the African critical minerals sector if it is to diminish its dependence on China and fortify its national security and foreign policy interests.

Economics ;  Environment ;  Global Policy

Secret Russian foreign policy document urges action to weaken the U.S.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has been drawing up plans to try to weaken its Western adversaries, including the United States, and leverage the Ukraine war to forge a global order free from what it sees as American dominance, according to a secret Foreign Ministry document.

In a classified addendum to Russia’s official — and public — “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation,” the ministry calls for an “offensive information campaign” and other measures spanning “the military-political, economic and trade and informational psychological spheres” against a “coalition of unfriendly countries” led by the United States.

“We need to continue adjusting our approach to relations with unfriendly states,” states the 2023 document , which was provided to The Washington Post by a European intelligence service. “It’s important to create a mechanism for finding the vulnerable points of their external and internal policies with the aim of developing practical steps to weaken Russia’s opponents.”

The document for the first time provides official confirmation and codification of what many in the Moscow elite say has become a hybrid war against the West. Russia is seeking to subvert Western support for Ukraine and disrupt the domestic politics of the United States and European countries, through propaganda campaigns supporting isolationist and extremist policies, according to Kremlin documents previously reported on by The Post . It is also seeking to refashion geopolitics, drawing closer to China, Iran and North Korea in an attempt to shift the current balance of power.

Using much tougher and blunter language than the public foreign policy document, the secret addendum, dated April 11, 2023, claims that the United States is leading a coalition of “unfriendly countries” aimed at weakening Russia because Moscow is “a threat to Western global hegemony.” The document says the outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine will “to a great degree determine the outlines of the future world order,” a clear indication that Moscow sees the result of its invasion as inextricably bound with its ability — and that of other authoritarian nations — to impose its will globally.

The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation , which was published March 31, 2023, and approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin, deploys bland diplomatic language to call for “the democratization of international relations,” “sovereign equality” and the strengthening of Russia’s position on the global stage. Though the Foreign Policy Concept also charges that the United States and “its satellites” have used the Ukraine conflict to escalate “a many-years-long anti-Russia policy,” it also states that “Russia does not consider itself an enemy of the West … and has no ill intentions toward it.”

Russia hopes the West will “realize the lack of any future in its confrontational policy and hegemonistic ambitions, and will accept the complicated realities of the multipolar world,” the public document states.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it did not comment “on the existence or nonexistence of internal ministry documents” and on the progress of work on them. “As we have stated several times on different levels, we can confirm the mood is to decisively combat the aggressive steps taken by the collective West as part of the hybrid war launched against Russia,” the ministry added.

Russia’s recent veto against extending U.N. monitoring of sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles program, effectively ending 14 years of cooperation, was “a clear sign” that the work contemplated in the classified addendum is already underway, said a leading Russian academic with close ties to senior Russian diplomats. The academic spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations in Moscow.

“Russia can create difficulties for the U.S. in many different regions of the world,” the academic said. “This is about the Middle East, northeast Asia, the African continent and even Latin America.”

The creation of the Foreign Policy Concept and the classified addendum followed a call to Russian academics for policy suggestions. One proposal submitted in February 2023 to the Foreign Ministry by the deputy head of Moscow’s Institute for the Commonwealth of Independent States, which maintains close ties to Russia’s security apparatus, laid out Russia’s options more bluntly still.

The academic, Vladimir Zharikhin, called for Russia to “continue to facilitate the coming to power of isolationist right-wing forces in America,” “enable the destabilization of Latin American countries and the rise to power of extremist forces on the far left and far right there,” as well as facilitate “the restoration of European countries’ sovereignty by supporting parties dissatisfied with economic pressure from the U.S.”

Other points in the policy proposal, which was also provided to The Post, suggested that Moscow stoke conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan to bring Russia and China closer together, as well as “to escalate the situation in the Middle East around Israel, Iran and Syria to distract the U.S. with the problems of this region.”

Zharikhin declined to discuss his proposal.

Western officials have warned that Russia has been escalating its propaganda and influence campaigns over the past two years as it seeks to undermine support for Ukraine. As part of that, it has sought to create a new global divide, with Russian propaganda efforts against the West resonating in many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia.

“I think the U.S. was convinced that the rest of the world — North and South — would support the U.S. in the conflict with Russia and it turned out that this was not true,” Zharikhin told The Post in an earlier interview. “This demonstrates the single polar world is over, and the U.S. doesn’t want to come to terms with this.”

For Mikhail Khodorkovsky — the longtime Putin critic who was once Russia’s richest man until a clash with the Kremlin landed him 10 years in prison — it is not surprising that Russia is seeking to do everything it can to undermine the United States. “For Putin, it is absolutely natural that he should try to create the maximum number of problems for the U.S.,” he said. “The task is to take the U.S. out of the game, and then destroy NATO. This doesn’t mean dissolving it, but to create the feeling among people that NATO isn’t defending them.”

The long congressional standoff on providing more weapons to Ukraine was only making it easier for Russia to challenge Washington’s global power, he said.

“The Americans consider that insofar as they are not directly participating in the war [in Ukraine], then any loss is not their loss,” Khodorkovsky said. “This is an absolute misunderstanding.”

A defeat for Ukraine, he said, “means that many will stop fearing challenging the U.S.” and the costs for the United States will only increase.

• How Russia learned from mistakes to slow Ukraine’s counteroffensive September 8, 2023 How Russia learned from mistakes to slow Ukraine’s counteroffensive September 8, 2023
• Before Prigozhin plane crash, Russia was preparing for life after Wagner August 28, 2023 Before Prigozhin plane crash, Russia was preparing for life after Wagner August 28, 2023
• Inside the Russian effort to build 6,000 attack drones with Iran’s help August 17, 2023 Inside the Russian effort to build 6,000 attack drones with Iran’s help August 17, 2023

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Labour’s foreign policy will be realistic about us as a nation, not nostalgic about what we used to be

Our guiding light will be progressive realism and an end to the reckless, gaffe-prone diplomacy of the Tory years

E very time you look at social media, a new international crisis is unfolding. Drones from Iran or one of its proxies hurtling towards Israel. Another Israeli strike kills civilians in Gaza. A Ukrainian city faces a fresh wave of attacks from Putin’s war machine. The revelation of another cyber attack from a hostile state on UK soil. Another threat of a land grab in my ancestral home of Guyana. Another coup in the Sahel . A new flood, wildfire or hurricane – the latest manifestation of the climate emergency that is too often treated as an afterthought.

The world order – which once appeared governed, at least to a large extent, by the rules we helped set up with our allies after the second world war – is now defined by a new form of geopolitical competition. Between the United States and China, over microchips, military might and trade. Between countries defined by the CIA director, William Burns, as the “hedging middle” setting their own agendas in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Between friends and rivals alike over the green transition – on which the future of humanity depends. ,

Within this messy and multipolar world, Britain is still reeling from 14 years of Conservative government. Our economy is held back by recession. Our army has fewer soldiers than at any time since Napoleon. Public services are on their knees. Our international relations have been undermined by the reckless and gaffe-prone diplomacy of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak and their damaging indifference to the rule of law.

We should not be pessimists. Britain still has great strengths and enormous potential. With the right leadership, we can and will navigate this new era. We remain a permanent member of the UN security council. We have the sixth largest economy in the world. Our universities, legal sectors, creatives and businesses continue to be world leaders. Our diplomats are admired by our friends as well as our rivals. But, in this newly dangerous and divided era, Britain needs a refreshed approach to foreign policy.

Labour’s approach to reconnect Britain, for our security and prosperity at home, will be built on progressive realism. It starts by taking the best from two of Labour’s great former foreign secretaries: the realism of Ernest Bevin, who, as part of Clement Attlee’s postwar Labour government helped create Nato and Britain’s place within it, alongside the independent nuclear deterrent; and the progressivism of Robin Cook, whose “ethical dimension” brought climate action and human rights into the diplomatic mainstream.

Progressive realism says we must use realist means to pursue progressive ends. Instead of using realism for transactional purposes and the accumulation of power, we want to use it in the service of progressive goals: countering climate change, defending democracy, advancing economic growth and tackling inequality – abroad as well as at home. It is the pursuit of ideals without delusions about what is achievable, and comes with the recognition that the UK’s interests must be defended for us to be a force for good.

So, what is progressive realism in practice? It means recognising that the UK’s success depends on hard-headed realism about our own nation and the continent’s security, not a nostalgic misremembering of what we used to be. It means recognising that supporting Ukraine is not only a moral imperative, but a strategic necessity, and that Russia under Putin is a long-term, generational threat that requires a long-term, generational response. This is why Labour is proposing a new geopolitical partnership with the EU, from our position outside the single market and the customs union. Our proposal for a new UK-EU security pact will be designed to increase our economic, climate and national security. And it is why, as Keir Starmer committed last week, we will raise defence spending to 2.5% as soon as resources allow and make an absolute, generational commitment to the nuclear deterrent.

In the face of conflict in the Middle East, in the short term, we urgently need an immediate ceasefire complied with by both sides, the immediate return of all the hostages cruelly held by Hamas terrorists, and for Israel to lift the unacceptable restrictions on aid flows to enable a massive surge of supplies into Gaza. But in the medium term, progressive realism means seeking the same things for Ukraine, Israel and Palestine: for each to be a sovereign, secure, internationally recognised state, at peace with its neighbours. This is why the next Labour government will be committed to working with international partners to recognise Palestine as a state, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.

Progressive realism means recognising that the climate emergency is the defining challenge of the next century, which requires diplomatic innovations, such as Labour’s proposed clean power alliance , to counter it, but also that it represents a unique opportunity to drive jobs, growth and innovation backed by a real industrial strategy.

Progressive realism is not only defined by the policies we espouse, but by the approach we will take to diplomacy. We must shake the hands of those we need for peace. Progressives must not be uncompromising about working with our partners in the Gulf. We must recognise that partnerships with the so-called global south work better than lectures and that hypocrisy – be that about sharing Covid vaccines or obeying international law – is corrosive to foreign policy. We should not fail to recognise that the US will remain the UK’s most essential ally, whoever occupies the White House. Pursuing ideals will be futile, without first guaranteeing our own security. It relies on knowing that progressive policy without realism is empty idealism, just as realism without a sense of progress can become cynical and tactical. It is rooted in the optimism that when progressives act realistically and practically, they can change the world.

David Lammy is the shadow foreign secretary

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here .

• Foreign policy
• Conservatives

Most viewed

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Political typology quiz.

Notice: Beginning April 18th community groups will be temporarily unavailable for extended maintenance. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Where do you fit in the political typology?

Are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .