‘America Will Call Evil by its Name’: ‘Evil’ as a Theologically and Morally Loaded Notion in American Foreign Policy Discourse

Author(s):  
Anna Kasafi Perkins
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-327
Author(s):  
Virsaviya Viver ◽  

The article discusses modern Eurasian integration - regional processes of unification in the post-Soviet space, in which Russia plays a guiding role. Despite the declaration by the American establishment of the importance of the Eurasian macro region and the deep involvement of the United States in the region’s affairs, the American foreign policy discourse clearly shows a lack of interest on the part of the expert community in integration in the post-Soviet space against the backdrop of Washington’s assistance in integration processes in other regions of the world. In this regard, the purpose of the article is to analyze the current practice of coverage in the American scientific and academic discourse of Eurasian integration processes with the active role of Russia. Based on the opinion of American experts from centrist, liberal and conservative think tanks, it is planned to determine the place of Eurasian integration issues in the American foreign policy discourse, to determine the dynamics of changes in the process of coverage of Eurasian integration by the American expert community, and to outline the nature of the assessments of American experts on Eurasian integration projects.


2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Edwards ◽  
Joseph M. Valenzano III

This essay explores the composition of United States post-Cold War foreign policy rhetoric under President Bill Clinton. We contend that Bill Clinton offered a coherent and comprehensive foreign policy narrative for the direction of U.S. foreign policy discourse in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, we analyze the “new partnership” narrative that Clinton articulated in his 1998 trip to Africa as a representative anecdote for the larger body of his foreign policy discourse. This “new partnership” narrative was structured by three narrative themes: (1) America’s role as world leader; (2) reconstituting the threat environment; (3) democracy promotion as the strategy for American foreign policy. These three themes can be found throughout Clinton’s foreign policy rhetoric and serve as the basis for a foreign policy narrative used by Clinton, and perhaps, future administrations.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Adam B. Lerner

Though psychic trauma may be an essential part of the human condition, in recent decades its interpretation as PTSD has had important political consequences. I examine both the political roots of the PTSD diagnosis and the disorder’s subsequent impacts on American foreign policy discourse. I draw on a mixed-methods approach, including historical analysis of PTSD’s development and quantitative and qualitative analysis of presidential papers, presidential debates, and the Congressional Record from the last fifty years. My chief findings are twofold. First, even though PTSD was added to the DSM in 1980, American leaders only began commonly referencing the disorder around the 2008 presidential cycle, more than half a decade into the War on Terror. Second, critical discourse analysis reveals that increased attention to PTSD has contributed to a blurring of important spatiotemporal lines around the concept of war, extending its consequences into an unknown future and outside the war zone. This erosion has profound normative consequences, considering how it similarly blurs the pivotal ethical distinction between victim and perpetrator. These findings not only elucidate an evolution that has taken place in American foreign policy, but also speak to the more general conceptual challenges posed by war trauma.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-490
Author(s):  
Kari Roberts

Anti-Russian sentiment - what some call “Russophobia” - is subtle, but visible in the American foreign policy discourse since the end of the Cold War. Most recently, it can be found in the Obama-era discourse about Russia, despite the positive bump in relations after the so-called “reset” of 2009. This paper contends that, among the many irritants in Russia - U.S. relations, anti-Russian sentiment among the American foreign policy leadership is an understudied phenomenon. Russophobia matters because it is present even at times of promise in the relationship; it impedes striking a “normal” relationship with Russia, and it influences policy decisions. This paper conceptualizes Russophobia, considers the source of its persistence in the American foreign policy discourse, and identifies examples of anti-Russian sentiment among key members of Barack Obama’s foreign policy team through an examination of memoirs and personal reflections about Russia. The paper asserts that anti-Russian attitudes in the American foreign policy discourse throughout the post-Cold War era must be identified and understood in order to gain a better understanding of why forging stronger, mutually beneficial relations with Russia continues to evade American policy makers. Anti-Russian sentiment undermined the Obama - Medvedev reset and, while it is certainly not alone responsible for deteriorating relations with Russia, it helped to perpetuate the downturn in relations and must be identified and better understood. The arguments made in this paper and in the selected citations herein, are based upon non-partisan scholarly inquiry and are not a consequence of the author’s personal or political views.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolas K. Gvosdev ◽  
Jessica D. Blankshain ◽  
David A. Cooper

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document