Arguing Public Diplomacy: The Role of Argument Formations in US Foreign Policy Rhetoric

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Hayden

AbstractSince 2002, US communication-based foreign policies have resulted in the launch of two high-profile international broadcasting stations — Radio Sawa and al-Hurra television — as well as other failed ventures such as the 'Shared Values' documentary campaign and the Hi Arabic youth magazine. These policies have, at best, delivered mixed results as a form of public diplomacy for the United States. The principal objective of this article is to illuminate how governing beliefs about public diplomacy might have mitigated its success, by identifying the implicit policy imagination revealed in policy arguments. This article investigates the discursive imagination behind US international broadcasting programmes and how public debate outlines an 'argument formation' for US foreign-policy rhetoric. Three episodes of policy argument between 2001 and 2005 are assessed as demonstrative of a rhetorically constructed policy imagination that prompted a broadcasting strategy that was incompatible with the communicative norms of its targeted foreign audience.

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jenichen

AbstractIt is a common—often stereotypical—presumption that Europe is secular and America religious. Differences in international religious freedom and religious engagement policies on both sides of the Atlantic seem to confirm this “cliché.” This article argues that to understand why it has been easier for American supporters to institutionalize these policies than for advocates in the EU, it is important to consider the discursive structures of EU and US foreign policies, which enable and constrain political language and behavior. Based on the analysis of foreign policy documents, produced by the EU and the United States in their relationship with six religiously diverse African and Asian states, the article compares how both international actors represent religion in their foreign affairs. The analysis reveals similarities in the relatively low importance that they attribute to religion and major differences in how they represent the contribution of religion to creating and solving problems in other states. In sum, the foreign policies of both international actors are based on a secular discursive structure, but that of the United States is much more accommodative toward religion, including Islam, than that of the EU.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-520

The article analyzes the phenomenon of the foreign policy presidency of D. Trump. Based on the approach of neorealism theory to the analysis of foreign policy, it is pointed to the significance of four variables in implementing foreign policy: the peculiarities of the perception by the heads of foreign policy, the strategic culture of the United States, the relations between the state and the society, and the role of domestic state institutions. The author concludes that the Trump administration eliminated a number of obstacles to unilateral foreign policy, putting America first. Trump and his administration were able to coined and launch a significant number of political initiatives that were contrary to the established priorities of the US foreign policy, but not all of the declared intentions had been implemented. However, this does not mean that the administration of Joe Baden will radically revise the main foreign policy ideas of the previous administration.


2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark S. Bell

What happens to the foreign policies of states when they acquire nuclear weapons? Despite its importance, this question has not been answered satisfactorily. Nuclear weapons can facilitate six conceptually distinct foreign policy behaviors: aggression, expansion, independence, bolstering, steadfastness, and compromise. This typology of foreign policy behaviors enables scholars to move beyond simple claims of “nuclear emboldenment,” and allows for more nuanced examination of the ways in which nuclear weapons affect the foreign policies of current and future nuclear states. The typology also sheds light on Great Britain's response to nuclear acquisition. Britain used nuclear weapons to engage in greater levels of steadfastness in responding to challenges, bolstering junior allies, and demonstrating independence from the United States, but it did not engage in greater levels of aggression, expansion, or compromise. The typology and the British case demonstrate the value of distinguishing among different effects of nuclear weapons acquisition, have implications for scholars' and policymakers' understanding of the role of nuclear weapons in international politics, and suggest avenues for future research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 69-75
Author(s):  
Anton B. Gekht

This article examines the role of Marcus Wallenberg Jr., a prominent financier and industrialist, one of the leaders of the financial and industrial group of the Wallenberg family, in the foreign policy of Sweden on the eve of and during World War II. Having concentrated in his hands the main threads of influence on the industry and the financial sphere of the kingdom, Marcus Wallenberg was unofficially involved in the development of the foreign policy of the kingdom, which sought to be out of direct involvement in the war. The article examines various contacts with representatives of the opposing sides, carries out with the active participation of this banker and industrialist, both as part of official delegations and as individuals – the main focus is on establishing interaction between the USSR and Finland in 1943-1944, as well as cooperation with the Allies – Britain and the United States. The article also analyses the non-institutionalised regular contacts of Marcus Wallenberg Jr. with the political leadership of Sweden during 1938-1945, including the difficulties faced by the financial and industrial group under his control in the period immediately after the end of World War II.


Author(s):  
Benjamin C. Montoya

A fear of foreignness shaped the immigration foreign policies of the United States up to the end of World War II. US leaders perceived nonwhite peoples of Latin America, Asia, and Europe as racially inferior, and feared that contact with them, even annexation of their territories, would invite their foreign mores, customs, and ideologies into US society. This belief in nonwhite peoples’ foreignness also influenced US immigration policy, as Washington codified laws that prohibited the immigration of nonwhite peoples to the United States, even as immigration was deemed a net gain for a US economy that was rapidly industrializing from the late 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. Ironically, this fear of foreignness fostered an aggressive US foreign policy for many of the years under study, as US leaders feared that European intervention into Latin America, for example, would undermine the United States’ regional hegemony. The fear of foreignness that seemed to oblige the United States to shore up its national security interests vis-à-vis European empires also demanded US intervention into the internal affairs of nonwhite nations. For US leaders, fear of foreignness was a two-sided coin: European aggression was encouraged by the internal instability of nonwhite nations, and nonwhite nations were unstable—and hence ripe pickings for Europe’s empires—because their citizens were racially inferior. To forestall both of these simultaneous foreign threats, the United States increasingly embedded itself into the political and economic affairs of foreign nations. The irony of opportunity, of territorial acquisitions as well as immigrants who fed US labor markets, and fear, of European encroachment and the racial inferiority of nonwhite peoples, lay at the root of the immigration and foreign policies of the United States up to 1945.


Author(s):  
A.V. Goncharenko

The article investigates the formation of the foreign policy course of US President John F. Kennedy on China in January-October 1961. There were characterized the election statements of the US presidential candidate from the Democratic Party J.F. Kennedy on China. The practical implementation of pre-election initiatives by the administration of the President John F. Kennedy in the Chinese direction in January-October 1961 was studied. There were analyzed reasons, course and consequences of intensification of Washington’s foreign policy strategy towards Beijing during the during investigated period. The role of various groups in the American establishment in the process of forming the foreign policy course of the new administration towards China in January-October 1961 is outlined. It is described the specific US foreign policy actions towards communist China at the beginning of J.F. Kennedy presidential period. The victory of J.F. Kennedy in the presidential election in 1960 was accompanied by a series of changes in the system of geopolitical and military priorities of the United States. The new administration’s more realistic approach to China was due primarily to the fact that Beijing, which renounced its alliances and claimed the role of a “third force”, was a weak player in the international arena and therefore minor, insignificant deviations from traditional policies of “containment and isolation” seemed acceptable. Moreover, the policy of “isolation” did not justify itself, as China has intensified its foreign policy, established relations with many countries, including the US allies. Gradually, the number of states that supported China’s demands for a seat in the UN grew, which created a real prospect for broad recognition of communist China. At the beginning of the presidency of J.F. Kennedy in January-October 1961, his administration was unable to quickly develop and begin to implement a holistic concept of “new frontiers” for China. His Chinese policy was inextricably linked to the US foreign policy in Asia and reflected the clash of American and Chinese interests in the region. At the same time, the representatives of the American establishment did not have a clear idea of how they could influence Soviet-Chinese relations in order to deepen the rift between the USSR and China, and what concrete benefits they could derive from this. This was due to a number of reasons. First of all, when he was elected, the administration of J.F. Kennedy joined the more important events at that time in terms of the US military and political interests than the policy towards China (European problems, issues of Atlantic unity, the Berlin crisis). Secondly, Washington still viewed communist China as a state that threatened American interests in Asia and was eager to expand its influence and strengthen its military power. An important influence on the formation of the foreign policy course of the administration J.F. Kennedy also had at the beginning of his presidency the fact that, having won the election with a minimal advantage, he did not risk starting a major change in Chinese policy and abandoning the policy of “containment”. In such way, the 35th President of the United States tried, at first, to show that he respected public opinion within the country, which was negative about communist China. Secondly, by demonstrating his propensity for the heredity of politics, he hoped to strengthen his vulnerable foreign policy position. That is why J.F. Kennedy, who did not rule out the possibility of changing China’s US policy, saw in his own practical actions toward China at the time no reason to abandon the doctrine of “containment”. Particularly, the idea of “containment” of China was the basis of a number of decisions of the John F. Kennedy administration, which eventually led to the escalation of American military intervention in Indochina.


Refuge ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan F. Martin ◽  
Elizabeth Ferris

This article examines the role of the United States in the international refugee regime. It argues that the United States generally leads in assistance and protection of refugees and displaced persons when three conditions are present: a strong link to US foreign policy; clear and highly visible humanitarian needs and important domestic constituencies in support of action; and strong congressional support. The United States manifests its leadership through its financial contributions, as the largest donor to the array of international organizations with responsibilities in this area; resettlement of the refugees; and the use of the convening power of the US government. Nevertheless, there are reasons to be cautious about US leadership. While it is unlikely that the United States will soon lose its status as principal donor and principal strategist on tackling displacement, its ability to generate new resettlement offers is less clear, as is its ability to increase its own resettlement levels. The asylum system still has significant gaps, making it difficult for the United States to lead by example.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-389
Author(s):  
Leandro Carlos Dias Conde

O artigo apresenta a política externa dos Estados Unidos como continuidade do período da Guerra Fria. Objetiva-se analisar a política externa dos Estados Unidos no pós-Guerra Fria como continuidade, tendo ela se tornado mais violenta em um contínuo crescente do poder dos EUA na ordem global desde o fim da Guerra Fria. Para tanto, assumimos uma postura crítica buscando analisar os fatos históricos mobilizados em relação ao papel dos EUA nesse período. Portanto, pretende-se analisar os novos contornos do sistema internacional no pós-Guerra Fria em relação ao papel de superpotência dos Estados Unidos. Discutindo o papel dos EUA nesse período, assim como o seu papel na economia política internacional do pós-Guerra Fria, como instrumento de política externa, no sentido de manter e estender o seu poderio.   Abstract: This paper presents US foreign policy as a continuation of the Cold War period. It aims to analyze US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era as a continuation, having become more violent in a steadily growing US power in the global order since the end of the Cold War. To do so, we took a critical stance to analyze the historical facts mobilized in relation to the role of the United States in this period. Therefore, we intend to analyze the new contours of the international system in the post-Cold War period in relation to the role of the United States as a superpower. Discussing the role of the United States in this period, as well as its role in the post-Cold War international political economy, as an instrument of foreign policy, to maintain and extend its power. Keywords: Foreign Policy; United States; Cold War; Post Cold War.     Recebido em: agosto/2017 Aprovado em: maio/2018


Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
Matthew Dotzler

The conflict between Turkey and the Kurds is once again reaching a boiling point. Following the defeat of ISIL in northern Iraq and Syria, Turkey is now concerned that the returning Kurdish militias pose a threat to its national security. The United States, as an ally to both parties, finds itself in a unique position to push for diplomatic solutions and to mediate the conflict before it grows out of control once again. This paper will examine the history of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, the actors involved, and how US foreign policy can be used to try and deter yet another war in the region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document