Bridging The Foreign Policy Divide

Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide brings together twenty leading foreign policy and national security specialists—some of the leading thinkers of their generation—to seek common ground on ten key, controversial areas of policy. In each chapter conservative and liberal experts jointly outline their points of agreement on many of the most pressing issues in U.S. foreign policy, pointing the way toward a more constructive debate. In doing so, the authors move past philosophical differences and identify effective approaches to the major national security challenges confronting the United States. An outgrowth of a Stanley Foundation initiative, this book shows what happens when specialists take a fresh look at politically sensitive issues purely on their merits and present an alternative to the distortions and oversimplifications of today's polarizing political environment.

There is a widening divide between the data, tools, and knowledge that international relations scholars produce and what policy practitioners find relevant for their work. In this first-of-its-kind conversation, leading academics and practitioners reflect on the nature and size of the theory-practice divide. They find the gap varies by issue area and over time. The essays in this volume use data gathered by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project over a fifteen-year period. As a whole, the volume analyzes the structural factors that affect the academy’s ability to influence policy across issue areas and the professional incentives that affect scholars’ willingness to attempt to do so. Individual chapters explore these questions in the areas of trade, finance, human rights, development, environment, nuclear weapons and strategy, interstate war, and intrastate conflict. Each substantive chapter is followed by a response from a policy practitioner, providing their perspective on the gap and the possibility for academic work to have an impact. Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in International Relations provides concrete answers and guidance about how and when scholarship can be policy relevant.

This book moves scholarly debates beyond the old question of whether or not international institutions matter in order to examine how they matter, even in a world of power politics. Power politics and international institutions are often studied as two separate domains, but this is in need of rethinking because today most states strategically use institutions to further their interests. Anders Wivel, T.V. Paul, and the international group of contributing authors update our understanding of how institutions are viewed among the major theoretical paradigms in international relations, and they seek to bridge the divides. Empirical chapters examine specific institutions in practice, including the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European Union. The book also points the way to future research. International Institutions and Power Politics provides insights for both international relations theory and practical matters of foreign affairs, and it will be essential reading for all international relations scholars and advanced students.

In an era of ever-increasing polarization in the US Congress, American foreign policy remains marked by frequent bipartisanship. In Bipartisanship and US Foreign Policy, Jordan Tama shows that, even as polarization in American politics reaches new heights, Democrats and Republicans in Washington continue to cooperate on important international issues. Looking closely at congressional voting patterns and recent debates over military action, economic sanctions, international trade, and foreign policy spending, Tama reveals that bipartisanship remains surprisingly common when US elected officials turn their attention overseas. Yet bipartisanship today rarely involves complete unity. Instead, bipartisan coalitions spanning members of both parties often coexist with intra-party divisions or disagreement between Congress and the president, making it difficult for the United States to speak with one voice on the global stage. Drawing on new data and interviews of more than 100 foreign policy practitioners, this book documents the persistence of bipartisanship on international issues and highlights key factors that facilitate or impede cooperation on foreign policy challenges.

Do middle powers matter geopolitically to great powers when confronting the unconventional, twenty-first-century threats from nation-states or nonstate actors? Bridging the European Divide explores how key regional middle powers perceived and advocated their political power options in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. After one of the most controversial and divisive periods in the history of American foreign policy under President George W. Bush, the Obama administration was expected to make changes for the better in US relations with the wider world. Now, international problems confronting Obama appear more intractable, and there seems to be a marked continuity in policies between Obama and his predecessor. Robert Singh argues that Obama's approach of 'strategic engagement' was appropriate for a new era of constrained internationalism, but it has yielded modest results. Obama's search for the pragmatic middle has cost him political support at home and abroad, whilst failing to make decisive gains. Singh suggests by calibrating his foreign policies to the emergence of a 'post-American'world, the president has yet to preside over a renaissance of US global leadership. Ironically,Obama's policies have instead hastened the arrival of a post-American world.

How America's political divisions influence our foreign policy

This book argues that Islam has been securitized in US foreign policy, especially during the W. Bush administration when it was increasingly portrayed as the ultimate “other.” This securitization was realized through the association of Islam with unique security threats in speeches of foreign policy and national security. By analyzing the four recent US presidents’ discourses on Islam, this work sheds light on how they viewed Islam and addresses the following questions: How do we talk about Islam, its place and relationship within the context of US security? How does the language we use to describe Islam influence the way we imagine it? How is Islam constructed as a security issue?