International relations are often conceptualized as interactions between clearly delineated nation-states. In this globalizing world, however, transnational actors are playing an increasingly larger part. Diasporic communities hold significant political clout within their adopted lands, as well as their home countries. Accordingly, several scholars have strived to break away from that traditional dichotomy: the domestic versus the international. Expanding on Robert Putnam’s theory of international negotiations as a two-level process (in which politicians must simultaneously please their domestic constituency and the foreign states they are negotiating with), Yossi Shain and Tamara Coffman Wittes refer to a “three-level game”. Diasporas are distinct from the hostland as well as the homeland, existing in a third space that confers them with unique political agency. To Shain and Wittes, “diasporas cannot be viewed simply as a domestic constituency within their host state but must also be viewed as independent actors in the conflict resolution process” (Shain & Wittes, 172). This distinction is particularly significant in light of the fact that the interests of a diasporic community are not always perfectly aligned with those of the residents of the homeland: Shain and Wittes argue that the primary value of the homeland within the diaspora consciousness is its symbolic power to convey and preserve identity – in contrast to those who live in the homeland, who may have more
America has its fair share of issues on the political agenda. Debates about taxes, gay marriage, health care, and gun control are all major issues that come up in Congress during almost every session. There is one issue, however, that has been debated since the early colonial period, before the United States of America was even a country. The issue of immigration is not only one of the most heavily debated topics in Congress; it is one of the most complex. It is an issue that affects both the nation’s foreign policy and domestic policy. America is, at its core, a nation of immigrants. This melting pot of people from around the world is what has caused this nation to be so successful. Unfortunately, the current immigration system that America has is in need of a complete overhaul. A comprehensive immigration reform package would be beneficial all across the board. The benefits to the economy would be immense, especially in times like these with America’s struggling economy.
No diasporic community manifests all of these characteristics or shares with the same intensity an identity with its scattered ancestral kin. In many respects, diasporas are not actual but imaginary and symbolic communities and political constructs; it is we who often call them into being.” (Palmer)
Over time the United States has had many different presidents, each serving one or two terms in office and that same tradition still continues today. Once elected the president spends the majority of his time in the White House with his family while serving the people of his country, and when his presidency is over, he goes back to living his normal life. While in office presidents deal with more than their share of problems and conflicts of interest whether they are domestic or international. To alleviate these situations, the president with the help of his administration comes up with solutions for these problems whether they are deals, treaties, or presidential doctrines. Presidents create presidential doctrines because of the conflicts of interest that arise, relationships that exist among each other, and provide the solution to the conflict.
The Jewish diaspora-homeland relationship is based on strong institutional foundation. Jews are concerned about the Jews community and feel responsible for not able to save Jews from Holocaust and they compensate for this by supporting Israel strongly (Shain & Barth 2003). Diasporic lobbying engages with coalition politics and is thus called as “diasporic coalition lobbying.” Coalition lobbying is related to coalition building and occurs both at community and national level. There are two different dimensions associated with “diasporic coalition:” intergroup coalition and intragroup coalition. Jews diaspora who have to struggle with the problem at the local level move their agenda through intergroup coalition (Laguerre 2006). The negotiation
So many of the problems we face today as a country and as a world are the result of ignorance and ethnocentrism. The misguided War on Terror, one of the more important examples in our time, is the result of religious and cultural intolerance on both sides. In her essay “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” Martha Nussbaum argues that to remedy such issues, we should forgo our nationalist tendencies and view ourselves first and foremost as citizens of the world, or cosmopolitans. The majority of her suggestions are well taken, but her belief that national boundaries are morally irrelevant and that patriotism is altogether poisonous may be taking the idea too far, and in a very impractical direction. In this paper, I will argue for a vision of cosmopolitanism more in line with that of Anthony Appiah in his book Cosmopolitanism. His theory of a “rooted cosmopolitanism” takes into account the moral significance of nations and is better suited to a democratic world.
Many famous fore fathers supported a strong federal government and were supporters of the Constitution. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were among these men who showed their support by writing essays called the Federalists Papers. They believed that to get the Constitution ratified they needed to “convince the public and state legislators that the Constitution would empower the new nation to succeed.” In Federalists No. 9 Hamilton argued that “a firm Union will be the utmost moment of the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.” Federalists also had the experience to negotiate treaties with countries abroad, and believed that a
American foreign policy has gradually changed since the birth of our nation. On July 4, 1891, John Quincy Adams addressed the Senate and House of Representatives during a powerful Independence Day speech designed to prevent an alliance with the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire. Although sympathetic to their cause, he warned against involving America in other states’ affairs, stating,” America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to Freedom and independence of all”. This paper seeks to evaluate the implications of John Quincy Adams’ statement, examine the trends of foreign policy and national security from the late nineteenth century to the present, and address current policy issues regarding
In simple terms, the Diaspora as a concept, describes groups of people who currently live or reside outside the original homelands. We will approach the Diaspora from the lenses of migration; that the migration of people through out of the African continent has different points of origin, different patterns and results in different identity formations. Yet, all of these patterns of dispersion and germination/ assimilation represent formations of the Diaspora. My paper will focus on the complexities of the question of whether or not Africans in the Diaspora should return to Africa. This will be focused through the lenses of the different phases in the Diaspora.
Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics.
Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we
Undoubtedly, the largest bugbear in Israel’s foreign policy is Palestine. When the West Bank was captured during the Six Day War, Israel began large-scale settlement programs that were largely condemned by the international community. Despite promises made at Camp David, they continued operating their settlements within the West Bank, later annexing the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. The United Nations harshly criticized Israel for its actions, condemning them as “null and void,” and classifying the captured territories as “occupied.”
He especially focuses on the juxtaposition of diaspora against concepts of the “nation-state” and on the flip side, against ideas of “indigenous” people. He feels that “the term diaspora is a signifier, not simply of transnationality and movement, but of political struggles to define the local, as distinctive community, in historical contexts of displacement". His examination of the use of diasporic language in the context of “tribal” and indigenous people is especially interesting, since as he is clear to point out, “tribal cultures are not diasporas; their sense of rootedness in the land is precisely what diasporic peoples have lost”, however when the discussion is about indigenous peoples who have been displaced, which is often the case, much of this language and framework used to discuss diasporas is readily
The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power
Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism