Ethnic lobbies play a very important role in the Creation and development of American foreign policy, but some ethnic groups are consistently more successful at influencing policy than others. Various foreign relations scholars have tried to explain this phenomenon that crops up again and again in American foreign policy. Among them are Tony Smith and Alvin Tillery, Jr., who developed different but complimentary theories to explain the origin of the discrepancy and analysis of how ethnic groups can lobby more effectively. Yet other scholars, such as Raymond Leslie Buell and Ralph Bunche, sought to explain the broader relationship between race and foreign policy. The two held dueling, often oppositional views on the issue of race in foreign
…show more content…
To explain their behavior, he created a theory that posited two models of engagement, the affective behavioral model (transnationalism) and the strategic behavioral model (Representational imperatives). The former refers to sentimental motivations for attempting to influence the Making of foreign policy. According to this model, ethnic groups feel a sentimental attachment to their homeland and thus seek to influence United States foreign policy in a favorable direction for that country(Tillery 1-13). One example of this rationale at work can be found in African American support for Ethiopia in its war with Italy. This support was largely driven by an affection that African Americans felt towards Ethiopia as an independent African power that was fighting against a colonial power (Tillery 66 – 67). While Tillary felt that this model had some degree of usefulness in explaining the behavior of the black elite, it could not by itself sufficiently explain their motivations. Conversely, the strategic behavioral model suggests that the domestic concerns of the ethnic constituency were the main motivators behind the behavior of the elite in the realm of foreign policy. One example of this model is the black elites’ rejection of Marcus Garvey. According to Tillary, they rejected the “back to Africa” …show more content…
He strongly believed that the colonizing power would bring civilization and culture as well as scientific and technological advancement to the territories that they conquered (Buell 303). This view, which labeled imperialism as a stabilizing and modernizing force, remained a more or less unchallenged tenant of international relations theory in the decades after the publication of Buell’s book. This environment was rife for Ralph Bunche to rebel against the status quo with the publication of his book “A Worldview of Race.” The book served as a reaction to the prevailing theory about the relationship between race and international relations exemplified by the views of Buell. Bunche argued that any degree of racial or social equality was of little meaning without full political and economic equality (Bunche 63). Therefore, he advocated a more deracialized viewpoint, choosing to focus on political and economic equality as a means to ending imperialism. This ideology is reflected in the policy prescriptions put forth in the study “The Atlantic Charter and Africa from an American Standpoint.” For instance, one of the main recommendations put forwards in the report is for The Atlantic Charter to be applied to Africa (The Atlantic Charter and Africa 104 - 105). The
To explain their behavior, he created a theory that posited two models of engagement, the affective behavioral model (transnationalism) and the strategic behavioral model (Representational imperatives). The former refers to sentimental motivations for attempting to influence the Making of foreign policy. According to this model, ethnic groups feel a sentimental attachment to their homeland and thus seek to influence United States foreign policy in a favorable direction for that country(Tillery 1-13). One example of this rationale at work can be found in African American support for Ethiopia in its war with Italy. This support was largely driven by an affection that African Americans felt towards Ethiopia as an independent African power that was fighting against a colonial power (Tillery 66 – 67). While Tillary felt that this model had some degree of usefulness in explaining the behavior of the black elite, it could not by itself sufficiently explain their motivations. Conversely, the strategic behavioral model suggests that the domestic concerns of the ethnic constituency were the main motivators behind the behavior of the elite in the realm of foreign policy. One example of this model is the black elites’ rejection of Marcus Garvey. According to Tillary, they rejected the “back to Africa” …show more content…
He strongly believed that the colonizing power would bring civilization and culture as well as scientific and technological advancement to the territories that they conquered (Buell 303). This view, which labeled imperialism as a stabilizing and modernizing force, remained a more or less unchallenged tenant of international relations theory in the decades after the publication of Buell’s book. This environment was rife for Ralph Bunche to rebel against the status quo with the publication of his book “A Worldview of Race.” The book served as a reaction to the prevailing theory about the relationship between race and international relations exemplified by the views of Buell. Bunche argued that any degree of racial or social equality was of little meaning without full political and economic equality (Bunche 63). Therefore, he advocated a more deracialized viewpoint, choosing to focus on political and economic equality as a means to ending imperialism. This ideology is reflected in the policy prescriptions put forth in the study “The Atlantic Charter and Africa from an American Standpoint.” For instance, one of the main recommendations put forwards in the report is for The Atlantic Charter to be applied to Africa (The Atlantic Charter and Africa 104 - 105). The