As we enter 2025 this is the key question that the world is waiting for, especially in the Ukraine. The one thing we can rely upon with the new President is unpredictability, but that will not alter the importance of this question and how he chooses to answer it.
Too often the view of the USA as “The arsenal of democracy” is considered only in the terms of its industrial and economic might and ability to arm Britain against the Nazis and later Europe against Soviet Russia. This is perhaps misleading as the original concept was far greater.
In 1918 Herbert S. Houston, an American journalist and businessman wrote a small book entitled “Blocking All Wars”. In this he wrote arguing for a League of Nations to form to police nations and described how America could participate as “the arsenal of democracy.” He argued for the power of embargo’s and in his argument stated that an embargo of Austria could have brought them and Serbia to a tribunal that would have prevented the First World War.
In the American “arsenal of democracy” were key weapons that protected democracy, amongst them: business and economic power; a free American Press; and the military strength primarily to enforce embargos to force dialogue of offending countries. He favoured the idea that business nurtured a peaceful and stable environment connecting people and preventing disagreement and war. In some ways there is a common agreement in this belief behind the People’s Republic of China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” I feel that President Trump's instincts will lead to a "business" solution. But prediction with him is difficult.
Prior to World War 1 America had a foreign policy that was largely dominated by the Monroe Declaration, a later name given to a principle of foreign policy laid out by President James Monroe in December 1823. This basically established boundaries in American foreign policy that it set up to protect itself from potential colonizing foreign powers from Europe, that is, it would regard interference in the running of South American countries in the Western hemisphere as an aggressive act against the interests of the United States of America. Britain supported this policy for its own interests as a Pax Britannica with the aim of ensuring no other European power would gain a foothold in the Americas. This is the root of what was to form “a special relationship” that is not always recognized as it is on American terms and has no treaty. This was imperfect with both Spain and France seeking control of Mexico, but by and large the Monroe Declaration held as a “red line” and by the twentieth century America was powerful enough to enforce its interests. Although not declared so openly, I consider that China today has a similarly desired policy in its immediate area.
This concept of “Arsenal of democracy” was to transform on 29th December 1940 as President Franklin D. Roosvelt sat down at his fireside and delivered and address to his nation on National Security. In this address he stated, “We must be the great Arsenal of Democracy”, but in this case it was soon to mean the supply of weapons, food and fuel to Britain and its allies in Europe. Not unlike today, the American people had no desire to be involved in a European War, indeed many view Ukraine as part of Russia and the European Union as economically aggressive to America (which it possibly is in many ways due to quotas).
In this speech Roosvelt described how “secret emissaries are active in our own and neighbouring countries” and trouble breeders were seeking to undermine American unity aided by American citizens unwittingly aiding and abetting them. He argued against appeasement.
It has to be noted that at this time many in Europe look at appeasement of Russia in Ukraine. Will President Trump join this call or should we all just “crawl into bed and pull the covers over our heads”[1] and hope the danger passes?
[1] From Roosvelt’s speech.
Comments