scholarly journals Obama’s Dual Discourse on American Exceptionalism

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (73) ◽  
pp. 25-56
Author(s):  
Miloš Hrnjaz ◽  
Milan Krstić
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Hard Power ◽  
The Us

Abstract This paper analyses the highly contested concept of American exceptionalism, as described in the speeches of Barak Obama. The authors of the paper use discourse analysis to show that Obama is using the idea of American exceptionalism on two levels: US foreign policy and the US stance towards international law. Our conclusion is that Obama uses an implicit dual discourse in both these fields. Obama favours active US foreign policy, based on soft power instruments and multilateralism. He insists that American exceptionalism does not mean that the US can exempt itself from the norms of international law, however, he does not think the US should always have a very active foreign policy. He makes room for unilateral acting and the use of hard power instruments in foreign policy. He allows for the use of force even if is not in accordance with the norms of international law, when US national interests are threatened.

Explaining Scott’s Turn to American History

2019 ◽  
pp. 33-56
Author(s):  
Paolo Amorosa
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
American History ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Advisor

The first chapter, like all others in the book, is divided in three sections. Section 1 offers an analysis of the US foreign policy discourse at the turn of the century and connects it with the growing popularity of international law within the elites. Section 2 follows Scott in his work as Secretary Root’s legal advisor at the State Department, until the two moved together to lead the newly established Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The highlight of Scott’s government stint was the 1907 Second Hague Peace Conference, where he championed the project for an international court and created a large part of the transatlantic professional connections that would be crucial to his later projects. Section 3 describes how Scott, since 1910 a powerful administrator at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, deployed the massive resources at his disposal.

scholarly journals In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin E. Goldsmith ◽  
Yusaku Horiuchi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mass Publics ◽  
Voting Decisions

Does “soft power” matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of these countries? The authors examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US. They draw their basic conceptual framework from Joseph Nye, who uses various indicators of opinion about the US to assess US soft power. But the authors argue that his theory lacks the specificity needed for falsifiable testing. They refine it by focusing on foreign public opinion about US foreign policy, an underemphasized element of Nye's approach. Their regression analysis shows that foreign public opinion has a significant and large effect on troop commitments to the war in Iraq, even after controlling for various hard power factors. It also has significant, albeit small, effects on policies toward the International Criminal Court and on voting decisions in the UN General Assembly. These results support the authors' refined theoretical argument about soft power: public opinion about US foreign policy in foreign countries does affect their policies toward the US, but this effect is conditional on the salience of an issue for mass publics.

The Iraq Syndrome Revisited

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hastings Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
President Obama ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Vietnam Syndrome ◽  
Post War ◽  
Syndrome Analysis

Commencing from an observation by Freedman that Donald Rumsfeld’s legacy as US Secretary for Defense was comparable with that of Robert McNamara, and that where the latter begat the ‘Vietnam syndrome’ , the former would leave behind the ‘Iraq syndrome’. Analysis of discourse under President Obama reveals that the effects of Iraq are more profound than Freedman indicated. In the Obama era the use of force itself was ever more in doubt. In limiting US commitment to fighting for core interests and formal allies, the Obama administration broke with the main post-war tradition of US foreign policy. This made the use or threat of force more difficult, as the appetite for risk was blunted by its experience in Iraq. Obama’s position was unhelpful in embracing the implications of the limitations of American power. US ‘risk aversion’ risked failing both the US and the world.

scholarly journals Soft or Hard Power? Discourse Patterns in Brazil's Foreign Policy Toward South America

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 103-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carola M. Lustig
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
South America ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Analysis Approach ◽  
Soft Or ◽  
Hard Power ◽  
Discourse Patterns

AbstractThis article analyzes the discourse of Brazil's foreign policy toward South America from 1995 to 2010 by means of quantifying, codifying, and weighting all speeches registered in the homogeneous and periodic official documentation of Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Affairs using a discourse analysis approach. The aim is to investigate discourse patterns in order to qualify Brazil's foreign policy as either hard power or soft power and to identify the orientation and differences in its discourse of foreign policy regarding each country of South America during the presidential terms of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995–2002) and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (2003–2010).

scholarly journals Neoconservatism as discourse: Virtue, power and US foreign policy

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengxin Pan ◽  
Oliver Turner
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Context ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
The People ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The 1960S

Neoconservatism in US foreign policy is a hotly contested subject, yet most scholars broadly agree on what it is and where it comes from. From a consensus that it first emerged around the 1960s, these scholars view neoconservatism through what we call the ‘3Ps’ approach, defining it as a particular group of people (‘neocons’), an array of foreign policy preferences and/or an ideological commitment to a set of principles. While descriptively intuitive, this approach reifies neoconservatism in terms of its specific and often static ‘symptoms’ rather than its dynamic constitutions. These reifications may reveal what is emblematic of neoconservatism in its particular historical and political context, but they fail to offer deeper insights into what is constitutive of neoconservatism. Addressing this neglected question, this article dislodges neoconservatism from its perceived home in the ‘3Ps’ and ontologically redefines it as a discourse. Adopting a Foucauldian approach of archaeological and genealogical discourse analysis, we trace its discursive formations primarily to two powerful and historically enduring discourses of the American self — virtue and power — and illustrate how these discourses produce a particular type of discursive fusion that is ‘neoconservatism’. We argue that to better appreciate its continued effect on contemporary and future US foreign policy, we need to pay close attention to those seemingly innocuous yet deeply embedded discourses about the US and its place in the world, as well as to the people, policies and principles conventionally associated with neoconservatism.

scholarly journals Vietnam Syndrome and its Effects on the Gulf War Strategy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baturay Yurtbay
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gulf War ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Vietnam Syndrome ◽  
The Vietnam War

The Vietnam War killed and wounded many soldiers and civilians. US foreign policy began to shift after the War’s, end including discussions on the level of power to be used for future wars or conflicts. The United States experienced considerable anxiety over its failures in Vietnam, which was coined the Vietnam Syndrome by the media and various political sciences scholars. The Gulf War, the first serious use of US military power after the Vietnam War, began with discussions about the suitable use of force and how the Vietnam War Syndrome could be overcome. While the Vietnam War was a huge failure for the United States, it also paved the way for new discussions on US foreign policy dealing with appropriate use of force, including last resort uses and US vital interests. These discussions are considered as the corner stone for the US success in the Gulf War. This study will briefly explain the effects and consequences of the Vietnam War and the Gulf War as well as analyse US foreign policy discussions between the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. While examining US foreign policy and the US intervention in the Gulf War, this research will mainly focus on the Shultz doctrine and the Weinberger doctrine. This study will show that the Vietnam War started many discussions on  the use of  force and its application in future wars that were part of the US Gulf War military strategy. Even though the United States experienced failure in the Vietnam War, the lessons taken helped to govern future conflicts and the most important clues were seen in the Gulf War.

scholarly journals FOREIGN POLICY MECHANISM IN USA: ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS

2018 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
The Us ◽  
Made In

Contrary to other liberal democracies in the world, the foreign policy in US is made in a very clumsy way. The constitution of USA has put the president and congress into constant tug of war over the issue of making US’s foreign policy. Constitutionally, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the bureaucracy, the President, the Congress, media and public opinion are given special role to frame the US foreign policy. The Constitution has built a bulwark against the despotic and tyrannical tendencies against any of these stakeholders. Apart from the compulsory role of all the said departments, much space is given to some external factors like UN, International law, NATO and the special interests of other US business and strategic partners to put pressure at numerous dimensions and aspects on US foreign policy mechanism. Consequently, it is difficult to figure out the more efficient stake holders involved in foreign policy formulation process in USA

Prospects for US foreign policy in 2018

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Hard Power ◽  
Policy Dynamics ◽  
Second Year ◽  
Regular Patterns

Subject Prospects for US foreign policy in 2018. Significance As Donald Trump’s presidency enters its second year, the administration’s foreign policy dynamics are settling into regular patterns. A set of senior US national security officials seek to promote conventional US foreign policy aims, but the president’s ‘America First’ vision, rhetorical interventions and political focus on rolling back his predecessor’s accomplishments will constrain their ability to reassure allies and signal to adversaries what Washington’s intentions are. However, the White House prioritising hard power and transactional diplomacy over soft power and working with allies will change how Washington operates on the international stage.

scholarly journals US EDUCATIONAL FOREIGN POLICY AS A “SOFT POWER” FACTOR: RETROSPECTIVE ASPECT

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (51) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Panfilov ◽  
Olga Savchenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Influential Factor ◽  
American Values ◽  
The Us ◽  
Educational Potential

The subject of the article is education as a component of US foreign policy that was used and still is as an efficient and influential factor in the development of society oriented to American values, viewpoints, and way of life. The goal of the article is to analyse the place and role of education in the US foreign policy strategy in the modern era, while the main objectives are to specify the strategic directions of using education as a “soft power” by the United States as well as identify specific mechanisms that enable achieving the most effective results in this direction. Within the study, all the above objectives are solved. In particular, the main results obtained include the following: the historical context of the US use of education as a “soft power” tool is studied, the strategic directions of using educational potential as a “soft power” are analysed, the areas where educational efforts of the United States have always been concentrated are singled out. The US experience in the sphere of educational services export can be used to specify and theoretically substantiate the capabilities of Ukraine to advance its interests in the international arena using the educational opportunities our country can suggest to the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document