American Diplomacy in the 1920s, John M. Carroll

THESIS

“American was restrained but active in foreign affairs during the 1920s.”

I. Republican foreign policy à “Independent Internationalism”

1) avoid political commitments/collective security arrangements (i.e. League of Nations)

2) economic progress would make the world interdependent, leading to greater trust among peoples à prosperity will bring peace and preclude war

a. businessmen should shape policy à they’re experienced and objective in the face of parochial and narrow political interests

i. “Hide” diplomatic engagement from the Senate and from voters

b. agreements should be voluntary, mutually beneficial, and enforced by public opinion

3) since US is militarily and economically secure, avoid risks and avoid sacrifices

II. People frustrated with Wilson’s missionary zeal and personal moralizing diplomacy embrace a new approach

1) Harding-Coolidge-Hoover play less of an active, personal role; authority is with State Department

2) Priority is economic reconstruction of Europe à reconstruction is in US interests and necessary to avoid social upheaval/bolshevism

“There will be no permanent peace unless economic satisfactions are enjoyed.” – Secretary of State Hughes

3) Political considerations in the US and France hamper economic reconstruction

a. U.S. public won’t forgive debt if it means higher taxes for them

b. French occupy Ruhr valley – Germany economy collapses

c. Dawes plan sets up a system funded by JP Morgan & Co. to ease reparations burden for Germany

d. Young Plan fails b/c Hoover fears connecting debt and reparations will anger Congress

e. Hawley-Smoot Tariff – ends up contracting both US and European economies

III. Disarmament linked to Economic Diplomacy

1) Put money into economic production, not weapons

2) 5-power treaty reduces size of navies; limits expansion of bases in Asia

3) 9-power treaty – reaffirms Open Door, but no enforcement procedures

4) Voluntary nature of the agreements per se is not the problem; the problem is that economic prosperity did not result

5) Kellogg-Briand Pact – “not worth a postage stamp”; French want a security deal, instead they get a toothless treaty

IV. Latin America – Closed Door, not Open Door?

1) US is interventionist up until the 1920s – defends its interest in maintaining stability with military force

2) Cartels and special trading agreements are the standard operating procedure in US-Latin American relations à “continental” policy (this goes against US claims that it supports free trade and open markets – it got “special deals” with Latin American nations because these nations were considered to be in the US sphere of influence.

3) 1920s – political and economic stability produces better relations between US and Latin America, with some exceptions (Nicaragua)

4) FDR’s Good Neighbor policy has its origins in the 1920s under Hoover.

V. Assessment of 1920s Diplomacy

1) Mixed bag – some things worked (Dawes Plan) others didn’t (Young Plan)

a. Economic cooperation overestimated – nations constantly revert to pursuing short-sighted, selfish policies (high tariffs, refusal to forgive debts, etc.)

b. Military power underestimated (Japanese and Germans re-militarize and find themselves at an advantage going into the 1930s)

2) Some lessons for later policy makers

a. There were limits to military force

b. Globalization would remain a force – interdependence of economies couldn’t be ignored

c. Political alliances could be expensive