A call to arms at the end of history: a discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush's declaration of war on terror

In this article we take a discourse-historical approach to illustrate the significance of George W Bush's (2001) declaration of a 'war on terror'. We present four exemplary 'call to arms' speeches by Pope Urban 11 (1095), Queen Elizabeth I (1588), Adolf Hitler (1938) and George W Bush (2001) to exemplify the structure, function, and historical significance of such texts in western societies over the last millennium. We identify four generic features that have endured in such texts throughout this period: (i) an appeal to a legitimate power source that is external to the orator, and which is presented as inherently good; (ii) an appeal to the historical importance of the culture in which the discourse is situated; (iii) the construction of a thoroughly evil Other; and (iv) an appeal for unification behind the legitimating external power source. We argue further that such texts typically appear in historical contexts characterized by deep crises in political legitimacy.

No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror

Is the use of torture ever justified? This article argues that torture cannot be justified, even in so called ticking bomb cases, but that in such extreme situations it may be necessary. In those situations, judgements about whether the use of torture is legitimate must balance the imminence and gravity of the threat with the need to prevent future occurrences of torture and maintain a normative environment that is hostile to its use. The article begins by observing that the use of torture and/or cruel and degrading treatment has become a core component of the global war on terror. It tests the claim that the use of coercive interrogation techniques does not constitute torture, showing that similar arguments were levelled by both the British and French governments in relation to Northern Ireland and Algeria respectively and found wanting. It then evaluates and rejects Dershowitz's claim for the legalization of torture and the more limited claim that torture may be permissible in ticking bomb scenarios. In the final section, the article questions how we might maintain the prohibition on torture while acknowledging that it may be necessary in some hypothetical cases.

Dangerous brown men:exploiting sex, violence and feminism in the 'war on terror'

Why is the public presentation of the war on terror suffused with sexualised racism? What does this tell us about ideas of gender, sexuality, religious and political identity and the role of the state in the Western powers? Can we diffuse inter-ethnic conflicts and change the way the West pursues its security agenda by understanding the role of sexualised racism in the war on terror? In asking such questions, Gargi Bhattacharyya considers how the concepts of imperialism, feminism, terror and security can be applied, in order to build on the influential debates about the sexualised character of colonialism. She examines the way in which western imperial violence has been associated with the rhetoric of rights and democracy - a project of bombing for freedom that has called into question the validity of western conceptions of democracy, rights and feminism. Such rhetoric has given rise to actions that go beyond simply protecting western interests or securing access to scarce resources and appear to be beyond instrumental reason. The articulations of racism that appear with the war on terror are animated by fears and sexual fantasies inexplicable by rational interest alone. There can be no resolution to this seemingly endless conflict without understanding the highly sexualised racism that animates it. Such an understanding threatens to pierce the heart of imperial relations, revealing their intense contradictions and uncovering attempts to normalise violent expropriation.

Spectatorship and the war on terror:creating consensus through global audiences

This paper considers the staging of violence, atrocities, and sexuality in the conduct of the war on terror. The piece discusses the manner in which the terms of the war on terror appear to shut down possible debate and examines the rhetorical and representational strategies that cause this. The paper argues that the war on terror includes a cultural project that seeks to create a consenting global audience. This cultural project appears more diffuse and less immediately instrumental than the military and diplomatic activities of this global battle. The piece argues that it is through the circulation of open secrets and accounts of torture and abuse that a global audience is constructed as both witness and participant in the practices and objectives of the war and that this positioning is designed to corral audience understanding into the suggested narratives of the proponents of the war. Este documento considera el escenario de la violencia, las atrocidades y la sexualidad en la conducta de la guerra contra el terror. El artículo plantea la manera en que los términos de la guerra contra el terror parecen suspender un posible debate y examina las estrategias retóricas y representativas que causaron esto. El documento plantea que la guerra contra el terror incluye un proyecto cultural que busca crear una audiencia global de común acuerdo. Este proyecto cultural parece más difuso y menos útil en el momento, que las actividades militares y diplomáticas de esta batalla global. El artículo sostiene que es mediante la circulación de secretos abiertos y de informes sobre la tortura y el abuso, que se forma una audiencia global tanto testigos como participantes de las prácticas y los objetivos de la guerra y que esa posición está designada a encerrar el conocimiento de la audiencia dentro de los relatos sugeridos por los proponentes de guerra.

British torture in the 'war on terror'

Despite longstanding allegations of UK involvement in prisoner abuse during counterterrorism operations as part of the US-led ‘war on terror’, a consistent narrative emanating from British government officials is that Britain neither uses, condones nor facilitates torture or other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment. We argue that such denials are untenable. We have established beyond reasonable doubt that Britain has been deeply involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse, and we can now provide the most detailed account to date of the depth of this involvement. We argue that it is possible to identify a peculiarly British approach to torture in the ‘war on terror’, which is particularly well-suited to sustaining a narrative of denial. To explain the nature of UK involvement, we argue that it can be best understood within the context of how law and sovereign power have come to operate during the ‘war on terror’. We turn here to the work of Judith Butler, and explore the role of Britain as a ‘petty sovereign’, operating under the state of exception established by the US Executive. UK authorities have not themselves suspended the rule of law so overtly, and indeed have repeatedly insisted on their commitment to it. They have nevertheless been able to construct a rhetorical, legal and policy ‘scaffold’ that has enabled them to demonstrate at least procedural adherence to human rights norms, while at the same time allowing UK officials to acquiesce in the arbitrary exercise of sovereignty over individuals who are denied any access to appropriate representation or redress in compliance with the rule of law.

Presidential power and congressional acquiescence in the "war" on terrorism: a new constitutional equilibrium?

US presidents have expanded executive power in times of war and emergency,sometimes aggressively so. This article builds on the application of punctuated equilibria theory by Burnham (1999 and Ackerman (1999). Underpinning this theory is the notion that rapid changes in - or external shocks to - domestic and international society impose new and insistent demands on the state. In so doing, they produce important and decisive moments of institutional mobilization and creativity, disrupt a pre-existing, relatively stable, equilibrium between the Congress and the president, and precipitate decisions or nondecisions by the electorate and political leaders that define the contours for action when the next crisis or external shock occurs. The article suggests that the combination of President George W. Bush's presidentialist doctrine, 9/11 and the 'war' on terror has consolidated a new, constitutional equilibrium. While some members of Congress contest the new order, the Congress collectively has acquiesced in its own marginalization. The article surveys a wide range of executive power assertions and legislative retreats. It argues that power assertions generally draw on precedent: on, for example, a tradition of wartime presidential extraconstitutional leadership extending to presidents, such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln,as well as to Cold War and post-Cold War presidentialism.

When planes fall out of the sky : the war body on screen

I can’t keep my eyes off the war body, even though in the repeated seeing of it I feel nauseous: implicated in, and affected by, its painful coming into being. In this age of the War on Terror, wherever I look, wherever I am directed to look by the all-seeing “vision machines” that “illuminate” our identities (Virilio 1994, 70), the body of the soldier, terrorist, hostage, and victim come into troubling view. These war bodies are real in the ontological and phenomenological sense; they are also metaphoric, simulated, and discursive. In this chapter I will define and explore the complex ways in which these three articulating axis—war, in its militaristic and ideological sense; the screen, in all its multifaceted forms and contexts; and the body, individual and social—conjoin and synthesize, disintegrate and dislocate, in a phantasmagoric but simultaneously desperately real collision of power, desire, and control. My main contention will be that the war body on screen is a “sickening” creation that we have desired into being, so that we may feel, better understand, and be taken over by its terror. This terror of living ultimately helps ensure our docility, a docility required by the late capitalist nation-state; it also reconnect us to our bodies in profoundly moving and potentially challenging ways.

The language of neofeudal corporatism and the war on Iraq

In this paper we argue that the term “capitalism” is no longer useful for understanding the current system of political economic relations in which we live. Rather, we argue that the system can be more usefully characterised as neofeudal corporatism. Using examples drawn from a 300,000 word corpus of public utterances by three political leaders from the “coalition of the willing”— George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard—we show some defining characteristics of this relatively new system and how they are manifest in political language about the invasion of Iraq.

A discussion of Fashion Victims: Various responses to the report by War on Want, Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 3 Iss: 2, pp.170 - 185

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a selection of responses to the report Fashion Victims, published by War on Want in December 2006. It offers a range of viewpoints presented by members of the Editorial Advisory Board of CPOIB. These are presented in chronological order of submission. There is some cross-reference by contributors to the work of others, but no attempt is made to present a unified argument. Design/methodology/approach – Presents the full contributions of involved participants, without mediation or editorial change. Findings – A number of different perspectives are presented on the central issue that is summarised by the opening heading in War on Want’s report – “How cheap is too cheap?” It is seen that the answer to this question is very much dependent upon the standpoint of the respondent. Originality/value – In presenting this form of commentary, members of the CPOIB Editorial Board seek to stimulate debate about an issue of concern to contemporary society, without resort to the time delay and mediating processes of peer-review normally attached to academic writing. It is hoped that this discussion will provoke further contributions and a widening of the debate. Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Multinational companies, Conditions of employment, Trade unions

Israel's airstrike on Syria's Al-Kibar facility : a test case for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence?

This article analyses the legality of Israel’s 2007 airstrike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility at Al-Kibar—an incident that has been largely overlooked by international lawyers to date. The absence of a threat of imminent attack from Syria means Israel’s military action was not a lawful exercise of anticipatory self-defence. Yet, despite Israel’s clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force there was remarkably little condemnation from other states, suggesting the possibility of growing international support for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. This article argues that the muted international reaction to Israel’s pre-emptive action was the result of political factors, and should not be seen as endorsement of the legality of the airstrike. As such, a lack of opinio juris means the Al-Kibar episode cannot be viewed as extending the scope of the customary international law right of self-defence so as to permit the use of force against non-imminent threats. However, two features of this incident—namely, Israel’s failure to offer any legal justification for its airstrike, and the international community’s apparent lack of concern over legality—are also evident in other recent uses of force in the ‘war on terror’ context. These developments may indicate a shift in state practice involving a downgrading of the role of international law in discussions of the use of force. This may signal a declining perception of the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum, at least in cases involving minor uses of force.

Enlightenment out of chaos : power, politics and The Chaser’s War on Everything

This paper focuses on the satirical Australian television show The Chaser’s War on Everything, and uses it to critically explore the potential ramifications of what McNair (2006) has called ‘cultural chaos’. Through an analysis of several examples from this particular program, alongside interviews with its production team and qualitative audience research, this paper argues that this TV show’s engagement with political issues in a creative, entertaining way that departs from the conventions of traditional journalism, allows it to present a perhaps more authentic image of political agents than is often cultivated in the mainstream news media. This paper therefore provides clear evidence that the shift from homogeneity to heterogeneity in the news media presents a significant challenge to those who wish to heavily control public opinion. It also provides further support for an optimistic re-appraisal of entertainment which emphasises its central (not merely periphery) role in political discourse.

Too early to proclaim the end of the war on childhood obesity

Parents winning childhood war on obesity, Australian Bureau of Statistics data reveals, screamed the headline. Sounds like a good news story to make every parent breathe a sigh of relief, but is it really true? The article in question quoted obesity expert and University of South Australia Professor Tim Olds, who argued that “the media and public health authorities are getting carried away” about childhood obesity. He pointed to the fact that recent ABS data showed rates of overweight and obesity in children plateaued between 2007/08 and between 2011/12. But that still means one in four Australian children is overweight or obese; it’s clear we still have a lot of work to do. As a nutritionist working with parents every day (both in practical obesity programs and in research into reducing this considerable health risk), I was concerned that the article could be taken at face value. Because there’s more, much more, to this story.