Jack Holland

Foreign Policy and Political Possibility

This article explores the relationship between foreign policy and political possibility in two parts. First, the relationship between foreign policy and political possibility is theorized around three analytical moments: political possibility is linked to the framing of conceivable, communicable and coercive foreign policy. Second, this framework is developed and demonstrated through a brief analysis of Coalition foreign policy in the War on Terror, considering American, British and Australian foreign policy between 2001 and 2003. This analysis dissects distinct and divergent Coalition foreign policies through a linked three-part conceptualization of political possibility. It enables an understanding of how the War on Terror was rendered possible through the construction of foreign policy in thinkable, resonant and ultimately dominant terms. The article concludes by looking to the wider analytical applicability of this particular theorization of the relationship between foreign policy and political possibility.

Leadership and the media: Gendered framings of Julia Gillard's ‘sexism and misogyny’ speech

This article analyses Australian media portrayals of former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillards ‘sexism and misogyny’ speech to parliament in October 2012. Our analysis reveals that coverage of the speech comprised three principal gendered framings: strategic attack, uncontrolled emotional outpouring and hypocrisy. We argue that these framings demonstrate the role the media plays as a gendered mediator, perpetuating the gender double bind that constrains female political leaders, as they negotiate the demand to demonstrate masculine leadership attributes without tarnishing the feminine qualities expected of them. In this instance, gendered media framings limited the saliency of Gillards speech, curtailed calls for wider introspection on Australian political culture and further disassociated women from political leadership. 本文分析了澳大利亚媒体围绕前总理朱丽娅吉拉德2012年在国会的所做“歧视、憎恶女性”的发言对她所做的描画。对那次讲话的报道主要由三个性别镜框构成。一是战略进攻，二是情绪宣泄，三是伪善。我们认为，这些镜框显示了媒体作为性别化的中介，加固了对女性政治领袖性别上的双重束缚：这些领袖既要展示阳刚的领导作风又要不失社会所期待的一些女性气质。在这个案例中，性别化的媒体报道，将吉拉德讲话狭隘化，妨碍了对澳大利亚政治文化的反思，割裂了女性与政治领导的关系。

Blair's War on Terror: Selling Intervention to Middle England

In December 2009 Tony Blair indicated that he would have pursued a policy of intervention in Iraq regardless of Saddam Husseins possession of weapons of mass destruction. In this situation he would merely have had to employ alternative arguments. Such a statement should come as little surprise. Blairs language throughout his prime ministership was highly strategic; it was framed to achieve support from his primary target audience, ‘Middle England’. Two key tropes—rationality and leadership—were repeatedly deployed in order to sell Blairs wars to the British public. This article demonstrates how Blairs strategically framed language was politically enabling in three analytical moments, helping to craft a conceivable, coercive and communicable British foreign policy discourse.

‘When You Think of the Taliban, Think of the Nazis’: Teaching Americans ‘9/11’ in NBC’s The West Wing

Only three weeks after the events of 11 September 2001 (hereafter 9/11), Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing delivered a special one-off episode, outside of usual storylines. The episode, titled ‘Isaac and Ishmael’, is interesting because it adopts an explicitly pedagogical theme to teach viewers how to think about the events of 9/11. The episode can thus be read as an instance in the wider construction of the meaning of those events. In this respect, this article argues that the production of the episode contributed to notions of rupture and exceptionalism. In addition, despite the potentially ‘liberal’ and ‘academic’ lessons given by the show’s stars, the extensive contextualisation of the previously incomprehensible events for a dominantly American audience actually relayed, amplified and reinforced the emerging dominant discourses of the Bush Administration. Accepting and repeating official tropes, The West Wing ultimately served to further limit space for debate in the wake of 9/11.

‘Affect is what states make of it: Articulating everyday experiences of 9/11′

This article considers the politics of affect and official discourses of ‘9/11’. Drawing on the work of William Connolly and others, it is argued that to understand the resonance of dominant constructions of ‘9/11’ it is necessary to revisit their successful incorporation of prevalent American affective experiences of September 11th. To date, this relationship between affect, resonance, and discourse has been underexplored in International Relations. Its investigation offers important empirical insights on resonance, as well as theoretical innovation in connecting established work on narrative and discourse with emerging work on bioculture and affect. To this end, the article introduces a framework for the future analysis of affect, culture and discourse within International Relations. The article concludes, however, that, notwithstanding its importance to resonance, in ‘crisis’ situations such as ‘9/11’, affect is what states make of it.

Howard's War on Terror: A Conceivable, Communicable and Coercive Foreign Policy Discourse

This article explores the relationship between language and political possibility. It is argued that John Howards language from 11 September 2001 to mid 2003 helped to enable the ‘War on Terror’ in an Australian context in three principal ways. Firstly, through contingent and contestable constructions of Australia, the world and their relationship, Howards language made interventionism conceivable. Secondly, emphasising shared values, mateship and mutual sacrifice in war, Howard embedded his foreign policy discourse in the cultural terrain of ‘mainstream Australia’, specifically framing a foreign policy discourse that was communicable to ‘battlers’ and disillusioned ‘Hansonites’. Thirdly, positioning alternatives as ‘un-Australian’, Howards language was particularly coercive, silencing potential oppositional voices.

‘We [for]got him’: Remembering and Forgetting in the Narration of bin Laden’s Death

This article explores how the death of Osama bin Laden was narrated by the Obama administration between the night of his killing and the 2012 State of the Union address. Three aspects of this unfolding story, in particular, are explored: i) descriptions of the operation itself; ii) constructions of bin Laden’s life and character; iii) accounts of the significance and likely consequences of his killing. The article argues that the narration of these events was characterised, first, by considerable discursive continuity with the war on terrorism discourse of George W. Bush, and, second, by a gradual removal or ‘forgetting’ of bin Laden and the circumstances of his death. Each of these dynamics, we argue, contributed to the legitimisation of his killing, demonstrating the importance of narrative remembrance and forgetting alike for the conduct and justification of liberal violence.

“Night fell on a different world”: experiencing, constructing and remembering 9/11

This article explores the endurance of the pervasive framing of “9/11” as a moment of temporal rupture within the United States. It argues that this has persisted despite the existence of plausible competitor narratives for two reasons: first, because it resonated with public experiences of the events predating this construction’s discursive sedimentation and; second, because of its vigorous defence by successive US administrations. In making these arguments this article seeks to extend relevant contemporary research in three ways: first, by reflecting on new empirical material drawn from the Library of Congress Witness and Response Collection, thus offering additional insight into public understandings of 11 September 2011 in the immediacy of the events; second, by drawing on insights from social memory studies to explore the persistence of specific constructions of 9/11 and; third, by outlining the importance of categories of experience and endurance for constructivist international relations more broadly.

The Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding Ten Years on: Critical Reflections and Stimulating Ideas on an Evolving Scholarship

ABSTRACT The Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. This special volume opens up with a selection of nine of the most influential articles published in the journal. JISBs editorial team has asked the authors for their reflections on their original articles, telling us more about the writing process at that time, what they would do differently (with hindsight), or how they see their articles contributing to current debates on intervention and statebuilding. We have selected one article per volume, and we have ordered the contribution starting from volume 1 (2007) to volume 9 (2015). The articles will be made open access for the year, and we highly recommend (re-)reading the original articles along with the comments from the authors.

Trump’s rhetoric at 100 days: contradictions within effective emotional narratives

One hundred days after his inauguration, there is still a tone of disbelief underlying accounts of the TrumpWhite House. The election of a brash, reality TV star to the highest seat of power has, thankfully, yet to be fully normalised (Williams 2017). The president’s statements frequently seem surreal (Nelson 2017). When asked about launching 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Assad’s forces, the President of the United States had perfect recollection of the chocolate cake he had been eating at the time, but had to be reminded which country he had bombed (Phillips 2017). Trump uses Twitter as a medium for public diplomacy and as an outlet for frustrations with his political partners (Trump 2017a; 2017b). His press secretary, Sean Spicer, is openly aggressive with the press, at times making ludicrous statements (e.g. Hitler never used gas), but has so far remained safe in his post because he ‘gets great ratings’ (Shugerman 2017). More troubling, Trump and his team have lied to the media since inauguration (Washington Post 2017). Subjects as diverse as crowd-sizes, voter fraud and imaginary terror attacks have all been falsely presented to the public (e.g. Sharman 2017). In addition to these issues with the truth, Trump is a known conspiracy theorist, having entered the political sphere as a ‘birther’, arguing that Barack Obama was hiding secret documents that would have made him ineligible to lead the United States (Hasan 2017). In office, he has falsely accused Obama of spying on him (Diamond, Zeleny, and Prokupecz 2017). All this poses a problem as to how to study Trump’s discourse. How canwe understand the security and foreign policy priorities of the new regime in a world of ‘post-truth’ politics? Here, we put forward the argument that the Trump White House must be conceptualised as engaged in a discursive war of position with its detractors. Through processes of othering and differentiation the president attempts to construct and sustain a regime of truth on US security that can consolidate a base of support strong enough to make possible his foreign policy agenda. We look at the nature of the discursive struggles surrounding theWhite House and how competing parties may take advantage of unfolding events. For this, we suggest, opponents must simultaneously exploit Trump’s discursive weaknesses – lies, contradictions and conspiracies – and counter his largest discursive strength – an ability to craft powerful and resonant security narratives, centred on the construction of threatening others and the manipulation of emotions such as fear, nostalgia and hope. Trump’s rhetorical style is striking in both its simplicity and its bluntness. However, despite being almost completely inarticulate by conventional standards, it is effective. The president’s speeches are frequently characterised by self-interruptions, angry tangents and repetition of the same limited vocabulary of adjectives. This style is, at times, reminiscent of