Is this a real question, did he really advise a 'neutrality' within his foreign policy?, gosh what a wise man, let's wish him back! and i'm not meaning to be mean or disrespectful but golly, neutrality to me means, good or bad i remain neutral and let them deal with their problems. Are they doing that now, yikes they've lost control, they're about to implode within themselves *sarcastic comment*, I have a few questions I'd like to ask, but right now, it's a figment of my imagination I'm not suppose to ask questions, remember, because i'm too stupid to speak out, or i prefer to sit on my couch or smoke another joint and let the crazy people fight each other.
2006-12-28 08:16:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by whispergently0204 3
·
0⤊
5⤋
George Washington's foreign policy of "neutrality" lasted up until the first world war. He advocated this policy because it was his feeling that it was best to live in "peace and amity with all the inhabitants of the earth.
He declined to side with France who wanted to go to war with England. He left the problems with a dispute over the Canadian border, problems with Spain, France and the pirates of North Africa to his successor and chose not to take sides.
In his farewell foreign policy speech George Washington stated that the new nation should "observe good faith and justice towards all Nations."
Several other stated goals of foreign policy are:
Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad;
Protecting allied nations of the United States from attack or invasion and creating mutually beneficial international defense arrangements and partnerships to ensure this;
Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world;
Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them;
Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.
If "Neutrality" were the only goal, then the others would be easy to ignore and make it possible to always hold to "Neutrality". However, based on this list, I can easily see why there may be exceptions to the neutrality part when one of the others is violated. It's not as straight forward as you may think - there are many complexities involved in foreign relations and policy is the guideline.
2006-12-28 08:47:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Granny Fran 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
My guess would be,because the colonies were short of goods and cash or gold ,they couldn't afford taking sides in any conflicts so he advises a " don't get involved policy" . It was good until they were attacked by the South!! this of course is just a guess!
2006-12-28 11:58:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by JNISSI 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
He was a smart well educated diest and first grand master of the masonic lodge of the thirteen colonies.
2006-12-28 08:47:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We were weak & Europe was several weeks away from us. Isolationism is no longer viable. I think it changed with our entry into WW I & was ended permanently with our entry into WW II.
2006-12-28 13:52:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
so people would not have foreign affairs with dealers and ect
2013-12-03 10:56:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Hallie 1
·
0⤊
0⤋