Strategic taboos: chemical weapons and US foreign policy

Abstract

This article examines US President Barack Obama's foreign policy rhetoric on Syria, specifically in relation to the threat of chemical weapons and the prohibitionary taboo surrounding their use. It contends that Obama's rhetorical construction of the taboo is not simply a commitment to the control of these horrific weapons (where such arms have been comprehended as so extensively vile as to preclude their employment), but that this also represents the strategic linguistic exploitation of these normative ideals in order to directly shape policy. By analysing of presidential speeches made during the conflict, it demonstrates that Obama has manipulated pre‐existing conceptions of chemical weapons as taboo, and also as forms of weapons of mass destruction, to deliberately construct policy in line with his own political ambitions—most notably as a way of forcing a multilateral solution to the situation in Syria. This article challenges existing perceptions of the chemical weapons taboo as an inherently normative constraint, arguing that this instead comprises a more agency‐driven construct. Static notions of the taboo must be abandoned and subsequently replaced with a framework of understanding that recognizes how the taboo can be used as a deliberate driver of foreign policy.

Analyzing President Obama’s Crisis Rhetoric: The Case of Syria

“…In this early phase, at least three contrasting views emerged. One held that Obama used rhetorical resources necessary for strategic and direct control of the Syrian policy course, employed language required to manipulate political beliefs and determine foreign policy desires (Bentley 2014(Bentley : 1038, provided arguments which rationalized his approach, and grounded his political choices in logic and history (Kaplan 2016: 51). Another view assumed that the president constructed discourse which was devoid of meaning and substance (Guiora 2012: 267) and lacked coherence and common sense (West 2013: 20).…”

“…It exposed the controversy about his standards and posed a real challenge to his worldview (Goldberg 2016: 90). On the question of language, scholars argued that Obama used rhetoric to define his goals and manipulate the perception of whether or not they were realized (Bentley 2014(Bentley : 1048. He constructed discourse to describe his positions and reconcile them with his risky policies (Kaplan 2016: 57).…”

The Media, Education, and the State: Arts-Based Research and a Marxist Analysis of the Syrian Refugee Crisis

“…In contrast, the US news magazines have an increasing interest in the topic of the Syria-US relationship. At first glance, the US appears to be less involved in Syria as it did in the past with other Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan; perhaps this is the attempt to avoid Syria becoming the second Iraq, and the US did not want to participate in another controversy within the international community (Bentley, 2014;Sanger, Schmitt, & Hubbard, 2017).…”

“…In politics, the narrative of fear is a powerful persuasive tool, and this is particularly evident in the 2016 Presidential election (Bentley, 2014;Disney, 2017;Fandl, 2017;Kellman, 2015). The Paris attack by the Islamic State in 2015 gave the US presidential candidates another chance to use the narrative of fear when discussing the topic of admitting Muslim Syrian refugees into the US; in other words, during the political campaigns, the idea of Islamicphobia was repeatedly planted in the audience (Kellman, 2015).…”

“…This policy is based on a narrative of fear (Bentley, 2014;Disney, 2017;Fandl, 2017;Kellman, 2015), and it is not a humane practice. In the fiscal year of 2018, the US admitted more refugees from these four countries than from other origins: Democratic Republic of Congo, Burma, Ukraine, and Bhutan (Cepla, 2019).…”