are they all rotten

Gani and Marshall express that there is the “notion that academic expertise might temper imprudence and propensity for war in policy-making is refuted by their respective willingness to approve of foreign occupations, military intervention, coups, drone attacks or authoritarian allies abroad, and of racial securitization, border regimes and incarceration at home” The propensity to do harm to the Global South and Global East has been under the watch of various periods of history in the American led world, particularly with interests invested in Western successes.  This has been going on for many decades, relentlessly.  The US and other Western powers have had academics who have acted as “advisers to governments, obliquely upholding the principles of imperialism under the guise of ‘grand strategy’ or the ‘liberal international order’”   It must be noted that, according to Gani and Marshall, “racist and imperialist ideologies have also been carried forth by critical, liberal or ‘left-wing’ academics”  Franz Fanon and other early postcolonial critiques and writers noted this was a trend developing in the modern West.  They also note that “French Muslim women activists have observed the silence of feminist academics in the face of attacks on the hijab and women’s ‘bodily autonomy’”  It is surprising that they missed the way in which Muslim womxn have been silenced in the US, with the presence of Ilam Omar within the congress, being a sole Muslim womxn voice therein.  As it is turning out International Relations has proven to be a mixed bag.    

Quoting Gani and Marshall at length, and understanding the nature of colonialism throughout the ages, there has been anti-Semitism across Europe . . . and at a time when “racism needed to be challenged”  In the field of International Relations Gani and Marshall suggest a “historical division between warriors and pacifists, realists and idealists, or right-wing and left-wing, can serve to produce an illusion of a critical debate and interrogation of the status quo within the discipline while utterly failing to grapple with racial and colonial assumptions that underpin both camps” This indicates the fickleness and poor goal setting and duplicity of those who wish only to have political power.  It is clear though that public and international policy are affected by versions of imperial colonial thought and actions, as well as racial disparity and racialized rhetoric and behavior coming out of the politicians' decisions.