of all the foreign policy strategies available to states, isolationism and internationalism stand out the most. It has already become a cliché to classify countries either as opened or closed on the basis of their foreign policy preferences. As we are moving toward a multipolar international order in which countries feel much freer than ever to chart their future directions, a discussion on the essentials of isolationist and internationalist foreign policy tendencies seems warranted.
Isolationism suggests that states would not want to get involved in political developments taking place outside their territorial borders. They might think that they have the power and capability to protect their territorial integrity and other key national interests by isolating themselves from the external environment. Isolationist states tend to believe that their geographical location, power capabilities and the nature of the terrain on which they sit would protect them from external threats. Countries that tend to pursue isolationist foreign policies generally believe that they are self-sufficient and capable of meeting all of their needs on their own.
On the other hand, the feeling of weakness might also equally lead to isolationist thinking that the more active they become outside their borders, the more they would be exposed to external challenges and their interests would be threatened. Countries that think they are extremely fragile in terms of their internal characteristics might decide to stay as far away as possible from international developments and may enter long-term interactions with other states. Pursuing internationalist policies might incur unbearable costs in their internal affairs. The more relations they establish with other countries and the more active they become in the internal affairs of others, the more likely others may also interfere in their internal affairs.
Countries that tend to pursue isolationist foreign policies are predisposed to believe that they are inherently different from other countries in terms of historical experiences, regime type and national values. They do not easily identify themselves with other countries. Countries that pursue isolationism abroad would not claim regional or international leadership at the center of their foreign policy thinking.
On the other hand, the reason why isolationism as foreign policy has continued to attract many followers since the onset of the 20th century until now cannot be explained fully by the logic of fragility. Coming out of the Spanish-American War in 1898, World War I in 1918 and World War II in 1945 as victorious, the U.S. has become the most powerful country in global politics by quite a wide margin. Protected by two oceans to the east and west, bordering much weaker neighbors to the north and south and outpacing all other countries on the map in terms of material power capabilities, one would expect that isolationism would lose its allure in the eyes of American statesmen, strategists and people alike. Yet, this has not been the case at all. Those who have argued in favor of isolationism since the early 1900s until now share the following points in common.
Despite huge differences between the 19th-century isolationism and Trump's "America First" mentality, foreign policy preferences of today's American president can also be defined as isolationist. Shunning nation-building exercises abroad, outsourcing security responsibilities to regional allies, disparaging globalism as a creed, adopting a transactional approach in interactions with others and supporting the idea of decreasing the number of American troops deployed abroad can be seen as examples of isolationist foreign policy.
Another country that has adopted an isolationist foreign policy is North Korea. Here, the logic of fragility is more prevailing than the logic of self-sufficiency, even though the Pyongyang regime has put the logic of self-sufficiency at the center of its national interests since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Surrounded by powerful countries to its west, south and east, namely China, South Korea and Japan and ostracized by the U.S.-led international community for a long time, Pyongyang feels extremely vulnerable to the outside world. The character of its regime and the meager power capabilities at its disposal do not put North Korea in an advantageous position vis-Ã -vis the outside world. Pursuing an isolationist foreign policy line seems to be informed by the strategic calculation that this is the most effective way of ensuring the survival of the totalitarian and authoritarian regime in Pyongyang.
