In his conducted reviews “Sectoral conflict and foreign economic policy”, Jeff Frieden examines the distinctive American domestic characters that played a major role on drafting the U.S foreign policy the period between the year of 1914 to 1940, he claims that the American foreign policy was a collective settlement that are pushed by two groups of bureaucratic actors that are clearly motived by contrastive economic interests. For example, he identified that despite the impressive enthusiasm that the U.S banks and corporation held, there are indeed other voices within the American political institutions that “had little interest in foreign affairs” and therefore afraid of foreign competitions and consequently opposed the export of American capitals:
…show more content…
While the domestically economic individuals, on the other hand, choose to preserve and support a relatively isolated America. As Fordham’s article indicated that it is normal for political entity to favor policies that concerned domestic economic issues, in exchange for loyalty for the general public; Frieden adds that even politicians like Roosevelt, prioritize to “resolve the country’s pressing domestic economic problems” above “stabilize international economic relations.” Then again, “The national interest is not a blank slate upon which the international system writes at will, it is internally determined by the socioeconomic evolution of the nation in question. The ability to pursue these “national interests” successfully, and the best strategy to do so, many similarly be determined by international conditions, but the interests themselves are domestically derived and expressed within the domestic political economy.” Gradually, the U.S allowed some levels of flexibility for which that foreign borrowers had to agree to “permitted freer access to the U.S market” or loans could not be …show more content…
For the “internationalist”, they actively advocate for free trade, promoting an opened international market and collaboration with foreign entities because they work on a commercial base and was motivated to individual interests, for example: J.P Morgan provided loans to European government, and act as their purchase agents which eventually supplied a quarter of the American export to its allies, they perhaps do not and is less willing to invest domestically for which they can clearly earn a large profit for investing oversea. Many of them, then began to serve as the specialized for the government on financial matters and become very involved with the process of drafting foreign policy during the interwar period. The “isolationist”, however, argues that the bankers should emphasize more on domestic economic development instead. They insist that it is immoral and unreasonable to waste the American capitals to support others when they can utilize these precious resources internally. Thus, American policy was highly impacted by the ongoing conflicts that were taking place within its institution. Not to mention that the “internationalist” teamed up with the state department and the federal branch where the “isolationist“ holds a strong tide with the congress and it 's continuing sending mixed signals to the
While the domestically economic individuals, on the other hand, choose to preserve and support a relatively isolated America. As Fordham’s article indicated that it is normal for political entity to favor policies that concerned domestic economic issues, in exchange for loyalty for the general public; Frieden adds that even politicians like Roosevelt, prioritize to “resolve the country’s pressing domestic economic problems” above “stabilize international economic relations.” Then again, “The national interest is not a blank slate upon which the international system writes at will, it is internally determined by the socioeconomic evolution of the nation in question. The ability to pursue these “national interests” successfully, and the best strategy to do so, many similarly be determined by international conditions, but the interests themselves are domestically derived and expressed within the domestic political economy.” Gradually, the U.S allowed some levels of flexibility for which that foreign borrowers had to agree to “permitted freer access to the U.S market” or loans could not be …show more content…
For the “internationalist”, they actively advocate for free trade, promoting an opened international market and collaboration with foreign entities because they work on a commercial base and was motivated to individual interests, for example: J.P Morgan provided loans to European government, and act as their purchase agents which eventually supplied a quarter of the American export to its allies, they perhaps do not and is less willing to invest domestically for which they can clearly earn a large profit for investing oversea. Many of them, then began to serve as the specialized for the government on financial matters and become very involved with the process of drafting foreign policy during the interwar period. The “isolationist”, however, argues that the bankers should emphasize more on domestic economic development instead. They insist that it is immoral and unreasonable to waste the American capitals to support others when they can utilize these precious resources internally. Thus, American policy was highly impacted by the ongoing conflicts that were taking place within its institution. Not to mention that the “internationalist” teamed up with the state department and the federal branch where the “isolationist“ holds a strong tide with the congress and it 's continuing sending mixed signals to the