Dış Politika Kararlarının Söylemsel Uygulamalar Aracılığıyla Kamuoyunda Meşrulaştırılması: Truman Doktrini, Foreign Affairs Dergisi ve ABD'de Anti-Komünist Söylemin Yaygınlaştırılması

Abstract

Liberal demokrasilerde politikaların kamuoyu ile uyumlu bir şekilde yapıldığına inanılır. Dış politika yapımı da bu durumun istisnası değildir. Karar vericiler belirli bir karar verirken çoğu zaman gelecekteki seçimleri akıllarında tutarlar. Bundan ötürüdür ki dış politika yapım süreçlerinde kamuoyu belirleyici bir faktör haline gelmektedir. Bu makale kamuoyu-dış politika yapımı ilişkisine farklı bir bakış açısı getirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Şöyle ki, devlet ve özel sektör deneyimine sahip uzmanlar tarafından yazılan düşünce kuruluşu makaleleri yoluyla siyasi kararlar ve kamuoyu arasında ortak bir söylemsel çerçeve yaratılarak, kamuoyunun rızası sağlanmakta ve böylece resmi politikalara uyumlandırılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Soğuk Savaş’ın başlarında, ABD başkanlarının resmi dış politika beyanlarının meşrulaştırılma sürecinde, Foreign Affairs dergisinde yayınlanan makaleler ile olan metinsel ilişkiler araştırılmaktadır. Makale, Truman Doktrini ile Foreign Affairs Dergisi’nden seçilmiş makaleler arasındaki anti-komünist söylem bağlamındaki metinsel ilişkiyi post-yapısalcı bir pencereden incelemektedir. Lene Hansen'in Model 2 söylem analizini kullanıldığı makale, bu iki tür metnin söylemsel bağlarını araştırmaktadır. Makalede Foreign Affairs Dergisindeki yazıların metinlerarası olarak Truman Doktrini ile bağlantılı olduğu ve doktrinin açıklanması öncesinde ve sonrasında Amerikan kamuoyunun gözünde resmi ABD dış politikasını meşrulaştırdığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Metinlerarasılık
• ABD Dış Politikası
• Foreign Affairs Dergisi
• ABD Başkanlık Doktrinleri
• Anti-Komünizm

Dissemination of Anti-Communist Discourse in the Post War United States: A Case Study of Foreign Affairs Magazine

Abstract

In liberal democracies, it is generally believed that policies are made in accordance with public opinion. Foreign policy decisions are no exception. While pursuing a certain path, decision-makers often have future elections in mind. As a result, public opinion becomes a determining factor in foreign policy-making processes. This paper, however, takes a different perspective. It argues that the media, particularly in the form of think-tank articles written by experts with years of government and private expertise, may facilitate public compliance with official policies via efforts to ensure public consent with the application of a common discursive framework. On that basis, this study explores textual relationships in the legitimation processes of formal foreign policy declarations of the US presidents via articles published in Foreign Affairs magazine. This study’s research design discusses intertextual links between the Truman Doctrine and selected articles from Foreign Affairs magazine within an anti-communist framework. It is concluded that the articles from Foreign Affairs magazine are intertextually linked to the Truman Doctrine, lending legitimacy to official US foreign policy actions among the American public both before and after the doctrine's announcement.

Keywords

• US Foreign Policy
• Foreign Affairs Magazine
• US Presidential Doctrines
• Anti-Communism
• Critical Discourse Analysis

References

1. Abelson, Daniel (2006), A Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U.S. Foreign Policy (Ontario: McGillQueen’s University Press).
2. Alger, Chadwick F. (1962), “The External Bureaucracy in United States Foreign Affairs,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 7 (1): 50–78.
3. Althusser, Louis (1971), “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation),” in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays: 142–7, 166–76. Translated by Ben Brewster (New York and London: Monthly Review Press).
4. Anievas, Alexander and Saull, Richard (2020), “Reassessing the Cold War and the Far-Right: Fascist Legacies and the Making of the Liberal International Order after 1945,” International Studies Review, 22 (3): 370-195.
5. Art, Robert J. and Patrick M. Cronin (2003), The United States and Coercive Diplomacy (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press).
6. Baldwin, Hanson (1948), “The Myth of Security,” Foreign Affairs, 26 (2): 253-263.
7. ——— (1951), “China as a military power,” Foreign Affairs, 30 (1): 51-62.
8. Banta, Benjamin (2012), “Analysing discourse as a causal mechanism,” European Journal of International Relations, 19 (2): 379–402.

9. Bennett, Sam (2018), Constructions of migrant integration in British public discourse: Becoming British (London: Bloomsbury Publishing).
10. Berlin, Isaiah (1950), “Political ideas in the twentieth century,” Foreign Affairs, 28 (3): 351-385.
11. Brannen, Barry (1952), “The Soviet Conquest of Rumania,” Foreign Affairs, 30 (3): 466-487.
12. Briggs, Charles (2003), “Why Nation‐States and Journalists Can't Teach People to Be Healthy: Power and Pragmatic Miscalculation in Public Discourses on Health,” Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17 (3): 287-321.
13. Carr, Edward Hallet (1985), The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923 (Vol. 1) (New York: W.W. Norton & Company).
14. Carvalho, Anabela (2008), “Media(ted) discourse and society: Rethinking the framework of critical discourse analysis,” Journalism Studies, 9 (2): 161-177.
15. Domhoff, William (2014) “The Council on Foreign Relations and the Grand Area: Case Studies on the Origins of the IMF and the Vietnam War,” Class, Race and Corporate Power, 2 (1): Article 1: 1-41.
16. Doyle, Randall (2004), “The Reluctant Heretic: George F. Kennan and the Vietnam War,” Grand Valley Review, 27 (1): 1950–68.
17. Ehrmann, Henry (1947), “French labor goes left,” Foreign Affairs, 25 (3): 465-476.
18. Eriksson, Johan and Norman, Ludwig (2011), “Political Utilisation of Scholarly Ideas: The ‘Clash of Civilisations’ vs.‘Soft Power’in US Foreign Policy,” Review of International Studies, 37 (1): 417–36.
19. Fairclough, Norman (1992), “Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis,” Discourse and Society, 3 (2): 193–217.
20. --- (1993), “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: The Universities,” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 133–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002.
21. --- (2000), “Critical analysis of media discourse,” in Paul Marris and Sue Thornham (Eds), Media studies: A reader (New York: New York University Press): 308-25.
22. --- (2013), Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (Abington: Routledge).
23. Gaddis, John (2012), George F. Kennan: An American Life (New York: Penguin).
24. Gati, Charles (1972), “What Containment Meant,” Foreign Policy, Summer 1 (7): 22–40.
25. Geraud, Andre (1949), “Insurrection Fades in France,” Foreign Affairs, 28 (1): 30–42.
26. Gruber, Karl (1948), “Austria holds on,” Foreign Affairs, 26 (3): 478-485.
27. Habermas, Jürgen (1991), The Structural Transformation of Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger (Boston: The MIT Press).
28. Hansen, Lene (2006), Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (New York: Routledge).
29. Hodge, Robert Ian Vere, Kress, Gunther (1988), Social Semiotics (Cambridge: Polity Press).
30. Hoey, Michael (2013), Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis (New York: Routledge).
31. Jarvstad, Pontus (2014), The Discourse of Anti-Communism and Its Influence on the History of Communism in Iceland during the Interwar Period, Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Iceland, Rejkjavik.
32. Johnston, Gordon (2010), “Revisiting the Cultural Cold War,” Social History, 35 (3): 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2010.486581.
33. Juan Li (2009), “Intertextuality and national identity: discourse of national conflicts in daily newspapers in the United States and China,” Discourse & Society, 20 (1): 85–121. doi:10.1177/0957926508097096.
34. Kennan, George (1947), “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, 2 (4): 566-582.
35. Kulski, Wladyslaw (1950), “Can Russia Withdraw from Civilization?,” Foreign Affairs, 28 (4): 623-643.
36. Langlois, Anthony J. (2015), “Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights,” in Michael Goodhart (Ed), Human Rights: Politics and Practice, 2nd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 11–26.
37. Lakoff, George (2006), “Simple framing,” Rockridge Institute, 14. https://archives.evergreen.edu/ webpages/curricular/2006-2007/languageofpolitics/files/languageofpolitics/Simple%20 Framing%20Rockridge%20Institute.pdf (Accessed on August 4, 2024).
38. ——— (2008), The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st‐Century American Politics with an 18th‐Century Brain (New York: Viking).
39. Larson, Deborah (1985), Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
40. Lucas, Scott (1999), Freedom’s War: The US Crusade against the Soviet Union, 1945- 56 (New York: New York University Press).
41. Lukacs, John, William F Buckley, Robert Conquest, and Nathan Glazer (1999), “The Poverty of AntiCommunism,” The National Interest, Spring 55 (1): 75–85.
42. Luther-Davies, Philip, Doniec, Kasia Julia, Lavallee, Joseph, Domhoff, William and King, Lawrence (2022), “Corporate political power and US foreign policy, 1981–2002: the role of the policy planning network,” Theory and Society, 51 (2-3): 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186- 022-09475-3.
43. Malik, Charles (1952), “The near east: The search for truth,” Foreign Affairs, 30 (2): 231-264.
44. Marinho, Cristina and Billig, Michael (2013), The CDS-PP and the Portuguese Parliament’s Annual Celebration of the 1974 Revolution in Wodak, R., Richardson, J.E. (eds) Analyzing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, (New York: Routledge): 146-162.
45. McGann, James (2010), “The Fifth Estate: Think Tanks and American Foreign Policy,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs Summer/Fall (2): 35–42.
46. Merrill, Dennis (2006), “The Truman Doctrine: Containing Communism,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 (1): 27–37.
47. Meyer, Michael (2001), Between Theory, Methods and Politics: Positioning of the Approaches to CDA in Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (London: SAGE): 14-31.
48. Molina, Santander (2009), “Critical analysis of discourse and of the media: Challenges and shortcomings,” Critical Discourse Studies, 6(3): 185–198.
49. Nathanson, Charles E. (1988), “The Social Construction of the Soviet Threat: A Study in the Politics of Representation,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 13: 443–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437548801300402.
50. New York Times (1972), “Andre Geraud, 92, Writer, Is Dead,” December 12.
51. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/12/archives/andre-geraud-92-writer-is-dead-frencheditorialist-used-the-pen.html (Accessed on August 4, 2024).
52. Orelus, Pierre W., and Noam Chomsky (2014), “Democracy, Schooling, and U.S. Foreign Policy: Noam Chomsky and Pierre Orelus in Dialogue,” Counterpoints, 458: 43–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42982196.
53. Parmar, Inder (1995), “The Issue of State Power: The Council on Foreign Relations as a Case Study,” Journal of American Study, 29 (1): 73–95.
54. ——— (1999), “Mobilizing America for An Internationalist Foreign Policy: The Role of the Council on Foreign Relations,” Studies in American Political Development, 13 (2): 337-373. doi:10.1017/S0898588X99002370
55. Paterson, Thomas (1988), Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan (New York: Oxford University Press).
56. Pietz, William (1988), “The "Post-Colonialism" of Cold War Discourse,” Social Text, 19 (20): 55–75.
57. Raucher, Alan (1978), “The First Foreign Affairs Think Tanks,” American Quarterly, 30 (4): 493– 513.
58. Roloff, Michael E., Miller, Gerald R. (1980), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (London: SAGE Publications).
59. Schoenfeld, H. F. Arthur (1948), “Soviet Imperialism in Hungry,” Foreign Affairs, 26 (3): 554–66.