THE PROBLEM OF NAVAL WEAPONS’ LIMITATION IN FOREIGN POLICY OF THE USA IN THE EARLY 20-IES OF XX CENTURY

The article researches the position of the United States on the issue of naval armsrestriction in the early 20-ies of the XX century. There are outlined causes, the course andthe consequences of the intensification of Washington’s naval activity during the investigatedperiod. It is explored the process of formation and implementation of the US initiatives tolimit naval weapons before and during the Washington Peace Conference of 1921–1922.The role of the USA in the settlement of foreign policy contradictions between the leadingcountries of the world in the early 20-ies of the XX century is analyzed.In the early 20’s of the XX century there have been some changes in the internationalrelations system and the role of the USA in it. Despite the isolation stance taken byWashington, the White House continues its policy of «open doors» and «equal opportunities»,promoting the elimination of unequal agreements between foreign countries with China,and attempts to influence the position of European countries and Japan in the naval contestissues and limitation of naval weapons. Taking full advantages, which were giving theUnited States’ the richest country and world creditor status, the US Department of Statehas stepped up its US impact in the Asia-Pacific region. The new Republican administrationsucceeded in offsetting the failures of the Paris Decisions of 1919–1920 and began to СУМСЬКА СТАРОВИНА 2019 №LIV 75construct a new model of international relations in which the United States would occupy aleading position. The success of US diplomacy at the Washington Peace Conference of 1921–1922 contributed to this. However, the conflict between the former allies within the Ententewas only smoothed out and not settled. The latter has led to increasing US capital expansioninto Europe due to the significant economic growth in the country.Despite the fact that the Republicans’ achievements in US foreign policy on localissues have been much more specific than trying to solve the problem of a new system ofinternational relations globally, these achievements have been rather relative. Leadingcountries in the world were still making concessions to the White House on separate issues,but in principle they were not ready to accept the scheme of relations offered by the States.That is why American foreign policy achievements have been impermanent.Key words: the