8. What roles do race and/or polarisation play in the formulation of American foreign policy in the contemporary era?

Race and Polarization in American Foreign Policy: Navigating Dynamics in the Contemporary Era Name of Student Course Name of Professor University Date Abstract The complex racial interactions and the impact of polarization on American foreign policy require in-depth evaluation. Racism and colonial legacies have influenced the United States foreign policy goals, affecting power relationships and international affairs. Racial factors are the main aspects that the country relies on in tending to the policies of immigration and the security of the border. Furthermore, as the US grew, imperialism, interventionism, and Wars made it powerful on the international stage and helped it acquire foreign territories. The Cold War era became the defining characteristic of American foreign policy from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. On the other hand, ideological polarization has caused American foreign policy formulations to be extruded from domestic concerns, leading to the perception of threats, priorities, and preferable strategies. The Impoverished minority groups, such as the natives and the low-class people, must undergo policies that fulfill only economic interests and not human rights, along with environmental sustainability. The partisan competition in the electoral sphere has a tremendous impact on the country’s foreign policy, contributing to the escalation of partisanship in the political environment. When looking for political power, politicians use foreign policy to gain their bases’ support and distinguish themselves from their opponents. All in all, racism and polarization have significant challenges in international politics. Hence, there is a need for diversity and inclusion in decision-making and bridging ideological conflicts, thus promoting effective foreign policy.  Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc167051172 \h 2List of Abbreviations PAGEREF _Toc167051173 \h 41.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc167051174 \h 52.Historical Context of American Foreign Policy PAGEREF _Toc167051175 \h 63.Polarization in American Politics and its Impact on Foreign Policy PAGEREF _Toc167051176 \h 84.The Role of Race in American Foreign Policy PAGEREF _Toc167051177 \h 115.Case Studies in American Foreign Policy PAGEREF _Toc167051178 \h 156.Addressing Polarization and Racial Inequality PAGEREF _Toc167051179 \h 167. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc167051180 \h 178.References PAGEREF _Toc167051181 \h 19 List of Abbreviations US:United States USA:United States of America NATO:North Atlantic Treaty Organization UN:United Nations USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics  1 Introduction In the contemporary era, the complexity of racial interactions and the impact of polarization on American foreign policy becomes a pressing matter for a thorough examination. It is essential to decode the subtleties of the US government’s foreign policy in a highly polarized world of races to understand that a dynamic global context becomes a key factor for it to consider (McCoy et al., 2018). The essay intends to explore those dynamics’ causes, current situations, and possible outcomes. A look at historical conditions makes it apparent that the prevalent racial hierarchies and colonial legacies have dramatically influenced the foreign policy goals of the United States, thus affecting power relationships and international affairs (Goedde, 2018). Also, the polarization of American politics, expressed as the ideological rift and partisanship enmity, has deepened foreign policy decision-making that often ends up in gridlock and dysfunction. In this context, consideration of race is a dominant variable in explaining the fear level, the interests regarding national security, and the techniques of immigration matters, plus border security. A racialized story, which is a predominant force of the political discourse, shapes decisions on counterterrorism, border control, and international interventions. Moreover, race intersects with the problem of world inequality and development in creating policies concerning international aid, trade, and economic assistance. These problems remain to this day, even if the US tries to spread diversity and inclusion in foreign policy because racial dynamics stay a critical factor in diplomatic relations and international opinion about the US (Cutler et al., 2020). Through thoughtful exploration of the intersecting realms of race and polarization, this essay is determined to untangle the complexities and thereby draw attention to the necessity of establishing a more diverse, transparent, and efficient way of navigating the increasingly interconnected world. 2 Historical Context of American Foreign Policy American foreign policy’s transformations have resulted in a balance of geopolitical realities, ideological considerations, and domestic politics. Even from the days of its young nation into its present-day status as a world superpower, the U.S. has plotted a course through an intricate maze of global relations. Key episodes and periods of American history have left enduring imprints on how the U.S. has structured its foreign policy (Hook & Spanier, 2018). The isolationism and neutrality guided the foreign policy of the early American period as the nation wished to deter European conflicts. President George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796, which applies to permanent alliances and foreign interference, remains the dominant thought process through the 19th century (Girn, 2018). On the other hand, territorial ambitions and consequent conflicts were, for example, the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War, which were signs of America’s growing independence from other nations. The last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century witnessed the rise of imperialism and interventionism as the US grew into a global actor. The Spanish-American War in 1898 was a turning point for America, having a great deal more of its power not only on the international stage but also in the acquisition of foreign territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, among others (Saccarelli & Varadarajan, 2015). Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine proclaims the US’s right to intervene in Latin American territories, the basis for later Latin American interventionist policies that lasted for decades. The process of the two World Wars marked the 20th century as the time of the transformation when America turned into the leader of the world community. Woodrow Wilson’s dream of a new global order with collective security and self-determination was expressed through the creation of the League of Nations. Unfortunately, the United States did not join the committee (Bellomy, 2019). After World War II, the United States became the world’s dominant superpower, and it took the lead in forming global organizations like the United Nations (UN) and NATO to help solve the security problem after the war. The Cold War era, which was driven by ideological tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, became the defining characteristic of American foreign policy from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. It was the containment approach that George F. Kennan and his successors advocated and implemented through the years in America’s struggle against the spread of and dominance of the USSR (Anderson, 2017). The most potent events during this period, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War, clearly marked the high risks the Cold War posed. The United States’ foreign policy was largely defined by a bipartisan consensus during most of the 20th century, and both major political parties traditionally tended to maintain similar positions on the most crucial national security matters (Krebs, 2015). This unity was most vividly displayed during the post-World War II period when Democrats and Republicans coalesced behind the policy of containment and deterrence. While the Vietnam War and further conflicts bruised the American consensus, it made way for segmentations and polarization in the American political system. However, bipartisan consensus in foreign policy became more and more prone to breakdown in the 2nd part of the 20th century and transitioned into the 21st century. The end of the Cold War, the globalization phenomenon, and emerging of new security concepts challenged existing paradigms, causing divergent reasoning on the participation mechanic of the USA in the world (Hook & Spanier, 2018). Problems, including military interventions, trade treaties, and borders, became increasingly political and mirrored the growing ideological and partisan rifts. 3 Polarization in American Politics and its Impact on Foreign Policy The ideological polarization has heavily caused American foreign policy formulations to be extruded from domestic concerns. These settings determine the perception of threats, priorities, and preferable strategies. The emergence of such a divergent ideology between liberal and conservative views has drawn lines on some major foreign policy issues, like the invasion of Iraq during the George W. Bush administration (Jeong & Quirk, 2019). Republicans primarily related the invasion of Iraq to the ongoing global War on Terrorism, focusing on the necessity for the forceful removal of dictators and democratic expansion. In this regard, Republicans were more willing to back this move, stating that it was a legitimate effort to prevent Saddam’s dangerous weapons programs, terrorism, and the potential for chaos in the region. However, the Democrats raised uncertainty on its legality, possible consequences, and the absence of an apparent strategy for winding down the conflict. This ideological divergence played a vital role during the dispute and its consequences, affecting discussions about force escalations and nation-building and finally extended by withdrawal plans (McCoy & Somer, 2019). The opposition during the Iraq War displays the effort of broader political factions in the domestic arena that underscore the ideological polarization within the American foreign policy sphere. The lines between these divisions determine the measures undertaken and the overarching approaches to international affairs. In turn, it becomes evident that partisanship is a foundation for different international role conceptualizations, thus making it difficult to reach a consensus and achieve a coherent international policy. The partisan competition in the electoral sphere has a tremendous impact on US foreign policy, contributing to the escalation of partisanship in the political environment. In the race for political power, the catch-all effect has turned foreign policy into a tool that politicians can use to gain their bases’ support and distinguish themselves from their opponents (Tomz & Weeks, 2020). The result is a more aggressive, combative, and polarized discourse concerning international matters. The recent Iran nuclear deal negotiations during the term of President Obama undeniably depict the significance of partisan electoral competition in foreign policy affairs. Republicans, fueled by their beliefs that the Obama administration was wrong and had political implications, unconditionally opposed the deal. They portrayed it as a step towards war and a threat to national security; their goal was to sabotage Obama’s talking diplomatic efforts. However, the debate over the deal was highly divisive among the Democrats (Skocpol & Jacobs, 2012). Many of them supported the agreement, viewing it as a diplomatic success that could prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and bring stability to the Middle East. The partisan division was gradually persistent even through the negotiations and beyond, as the Republicans relied on lawmaking tricks and public campaigns to defeat the agreement’s implementation (Myrick, 2021). Through their actions, these actors made polarization around the issue all the more complex, stifling fruitful discussions and developing cooperation on matters that require strong attention on the part of the national security and stability of the world. It has led to emotionally- charged partisan rivalry in the election process, which continues to determine and block the attempts of foreign policy in the US government to deal with complicated global issues through cooperative and bipartisan interventions. Kabau (2012) asserts that “forceful intervention or its threat is occasionally necessary for negotiations to be successful, and in order to ensure effective protection of civilians” (p. 61). Therefore, a healthy intervention mecha...