Opinion – Trump, Race and International Politics
The foreign policy of the United states under Donald Trump presented a marked departure from established norms, frequently enough characterized by transactionalism and a prioritization of perceived national interests. However, beyond the frequently discussed shift in how foreign policy was conducted, lies a critical, and often sidelined, element: the influence of race.Examining the Trump management’s approach to international relations reveals a pattern where racial considerations demonstrably impacted both policy framing and outcomes.
Trump’s foreign policy wasn’t simply “America First”; it was frequently enough demonstrably shaped by a worldview where racial dynamics played a critically important role. This manifested in a willingness to engage with authoritarian regimes,perhaps motivated by personal gain - such as access to rich mineral mines from involved parties – or the pursuit of increased investment in the united States,as seen in the case of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.This transactional approach, however, existed within a broader context of rising populism and, crucially, the normalization of racist ideologies.
The current era, as described by C. rajamohan as a ”con-intern” or “conservative international,” represents a convergence of populism, pro-market economic policies, anti-climate politics, anti-immigration sentiment, and explicitly racist ideologies. Ignoring this intersection is to misunderstand the forces shaping both domestic and foreign policy. The evidence suggests that race wasn’t a peripheral factor, but a central one influencing the United states’ international conduct in the 21st century.
Indeed, the trump administration witnessed a shedding of the subtle language previously used to mask racist undercurrents in US foreign policy. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta observes, the “racist mask” of the international order came off.Racism, previously frequently enough implicit, became increasingly overt. This normalization, fueled by a discourse that benefits millions, suggests its persistence even after Trump’s departure, as highlighted by analyses from sources like Counterpunch.
This reality demands a critical reassessment within the field of International Relations (IR). As Sankaran Krishna argues, we must “work and see around the dazzling blindness of white IR and its abstractions, accepting and reiterating the conjoined histories that constitute us and our craft, telling us what to do tomorrow.”
The path forward requires a intentional “deracialization” of IR, inseparable from the broader project of decolonization. This necessitates a essential shift in our syllabi and pedagogical practices, actively addressing inherent biases and challenging the established hierarchies of knowledge within the discipline. Furthermore, fostering a politically conscious approach is crucial. This deracialization process isn’t merely about social or psychological reform; it demands epistemic reconstitution and continuous resistance against hegemonic discourses operating at all levels – unit, systemic, and planetary.
