S

Post 9/11 International Relations and

HegemonyBy: James Huff

International Relations

Before 9/11, the United States had a booming economy, a steady leadership role in global politics, and a secure position as the global superpower

After the brief skirmish presented by the Gulf War, the United States had believed that the win would suppress the radical Muslim movements that were springing up

The United States turned the focus back home, brushing off foreign affairs, and reducing its global presence

International Relations cont.

After 9/11, the U.S. found itself thrust to the forefront global politics as the world wondered how the U.S. would respond to the attacks

The media focused in on the large number of allies the United States had helping the effort while ignoring the resentment rising in the Middle East

The scholars recognized the anger boiling up and warned against pursuing further missions, however, the warnings went unrecognized by the government

International Relations cont.

The media missed the massive fallout of allies in the Middle East as well as the resentment that many citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan built against the United States

The largest implications of this was that the United States public expected a quick war with cooperation from the citizens – instead they fought against us.

If the media would have lost the pro-U.S. government bias, they could have seen how the plans were failing to produce positive results

Hegemony

Before 9/11, the United States had hegemonic control over key spots all around the world with large bases in Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Turkey, and many other allied areas

Since the Gulf War, the U.S. military hadn’t seen much action – with the conflicts resolved, there was no need for a show of military strength

The U.S. foreign policies had grown very lax and were focused in on economic growth and prosperity

Hegemony cont.

After 9/11, U.S. hegemony was challenged all around the world as the attacks made the United States look weak in their home land

The media covered the positive U.S. charge lead against the regimes in the Middle East and showed the United States military as winning the war with brute force

The scholars recognized that the power plays of the U.S. would not efficiently contribute to the nation building goals and warned that strong hegemony was not the right track

Hegemony cont.

The media blinded themselves to the strength the regimes had and the power they had in these nations

These blinders lead to poor reporting on the casualties of U.S. troops and the infectivity of the policies the United States military were pursuing in the Middle east

Had the media reported the casualties, there would have been an acknowledgement of the failing policies and a quicker push for reform of them

Security and ToleranceMallory Zimmerman

France• Secular History• Doctrines

• What’s the threat?

“Ban the Burqa”• The Law• Framing

• Justification

Great Britain• The attack: 7/7

• The threat: “Home Grown”

“Repudiated Multiculturalism”• British first, Muslim Second

• Immigration is synonymous with…

The United States• The attack: September 11

• The concern: Physical Security• Freedom of Religion?• Government vs. Society

• Physical Security: TSA etc.• War on Terror

• Is everyone onboard?

In the Media• Security Studies: anti-Islam• Civil Right: pro-Islam

• Historical: Tradition, Constitution Viewing one leads to another

Ethics and Civil Liberties

Timothy HoUnderstanding 9/11 UGS 302

Oral Presentation

QUESTIONIn regards to an ethical perspective, did the Bush

Administration back its claims to bolster freedom

domestically in the United States? If it did not

back its claims, how did it go against its promise?

ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE

The discipline of ethics in the evaluation of claims made by

an individual or entity seeks to analyze the extent to which

said individual or entity is truthful about their claims and

holds their word. Likewise the treatment of human beings,

in the study of ethics, seeks to analyze the degree to

which a person is being justly treated and to a purview, if

that treatment is moral.

GEORGE BUSH“No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.”

GEORGE W. BUSH, The New Yorker, Jan. 19, 2004

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=4269

ETHICS: Before 9/11

ETHICAL UNETHICAL

ETHICS: After 9/11

ETHICALUNETHICAL

Torture

Under the Bush

Administration torture was

used to acquire information

from detainees, which was

previously not allowed.

Photo: The Examiner

Photo: Infographics

Detainment

Many “suspected”

hostiles and terrorists

were held indefinitely

without access to

counsel or due process. Guantanamo detainees let out for morning timePhoto: rt.com

SurveillanceMany Muslim Americans and

Arabic persons were put under

illegal surveillance by the

government. A person cannot

be spied on under the law if

he poses no evident threat.Photo: Salon.com

Racial Profiling

Government official in the Bush Administration singled out Muslims after

9/11 because of the persisting stereotype that all Muslim are terrorists.

Photo: Restorefairness.org

CoverageTHE NEW YORK TIMES

THE LOS ANGELES TIMESJOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEWTHE GUARDIAN

DUKE FORUM FOR LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Coverage of this topic was extensive both in the scholarly

sphere as well as the popular sphere.

CoverageTHE NEW YORK TIMES“on basis of race, religion, or national origin”

-Nina BernsteinTHE LOS ANGELES TIMES“damage to victim”

-Doyle McManus

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS“memory loss, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder”

-John IpNEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW“shrift to civil liberties”

-Donna LiebermanTHE GUARDIAN“increasingly sidelining human rights”

-Sarah LeftDUKE FORUM FOR LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE “detain thousands of non-citizens… holding them indefinitely”

-Natsu Taylor Saito

CONCLUSIONMany scholars as well as popular writers have

answer the question posed previously. The answer is

an overwhelming no, that the Bush Administration

in fact harmed civil liberties and limited them post

9/11. From this it is evident that the Bush

Administration ethically violated its promise.

Advertising Post 9/11Elizabeth

Bryant

Question: What types of advertising were needed for

commercial businesses and non-profit organizations to respond effectively to 9/11?

Where did they go wrong? Where did they go right? What messages did they convey, and with

what suggestions for a diverse and/or nationalistic America?

From a popular media perspective…

Popular media sources were very critical of both commercial and non-profit advertisers who used 9/11 to create a dramatic and advantageous statement that grabbed people’s attention.

Examples:A campaign in Chile for BIC, which makes paper correction fluid, was banned shortly after its launch. The caption claims that ‘there are images we would rather erase.’

Media sources such as Euronews, a popular European news site, criticized the ad saying that it used a very unjust marketing technique common among commercial companies. It takes advantage of Americans while providing a potential source of revenue. After all, comparing the attacks on 9/11 to a simple office device is bound to get any proud American’s blood boiling.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) triggered a controversy when it ran this campaign. The ad claims that while “one of the worst tragedies in the history of humanity killed 2,819 people”, the 2005 tsunami claimed 100 times more lives.

This ad was powerful, yet brutal, aiming to provoke awareness of environmental issues. Popular media sources such as Euronews began recognizing these patterns, calling these organizations out on their mistakes. Although these organizations may have had good intentions in promoting worldly issues, they took advantage of American’s attentiveness to provocative ads in order to personally benefit.

Also from a popular media perspective…

On the other hand, various popular media sources claimed that these ad campaigns incorporating 9/11 were not lucrative schemes concocted by the advertisers, but rather informative messages for Americans.

Examples:“If You See Something, Say Something”, which was coined by Allen Kay of the Manhattan advertising Agency Korey Kay & Partners was a slogan created for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to generate security consciousness and to encourage customers to report suspicious activity.

Time Magazine’s Manny Fernandez argues that this campaign slogan is not for the personal benefit of Kay’s agency or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Rather, “it’s strong, simple and it’s a call to action” (A Phrase for Safety After 9/11 Goes Global, 2010, p.1).

From a scholarly perspective…

Similar to the popular media, many scholarly sources explored the idea that both commercial businesses and non-profit organizations used these ad campaigns to offer a sense of nationalistic pride to Americans, rather than just providing a money-making scheme.

Example:One of the strategies Under Armour used to re-brand/re-market their company after 9/11 was implementing the Freedom Initiative, which was a way for the company to “proudly announce their commitment to the military and public safety officials who risk their lives protecting our house” (“I Will Protect this House:” Under Armour, Corporate Nationalism and Post-9/11 Cultural Politics, Weedon, 2012, p. 271). The company created ads like the one to the left to promote the Freedom Initiative. These ads were intended to inspire consumers to engage in an act of patriotically inspired philanthropy in honor of the U.S. service members. Journalist Gavin Weedon, a scholarly writer

for The Sociology of Sport Journal claims that through the Freedom Initiative, Under Armour was able to make a difference in America. It just so happens that this difference being made reflected rather highly upon the brand’s overall name and appearance, thus resulting in sparked revenues.

Also from a scholarly perspective…

Contrarily, some scholarly journalists argued that advertising was unjustly used to sell ideas about an imagined American community.

Example:The “I am an American-Muslim” campaign, produced by the Council on American and Islam Relations (CAIR) was intended to show that not not all Muslims are pro-terrorism. The ad attempted to both delink Muslims from the Arabs and depict their culture group as integrated Americans.

Evelyn Alsultany of the University of Michigan wrote an article in the American Quarterly that reasoned that campaigns like the one shown above were very artificial. Although they attempted to convince people that all Muslims aren’t terrorists, the campaign actually reacts to and highlights the discourses that hold ideological predominance of American natives.

The quality of coverage of this issue in the media: was it good? The fact that I was able to find scholarly and popular articles that

both commended and criticized the advertising techniques after 9/11 speaks volumes. Although the amount of popular media perspectives found was much greater in abundance than those of scholarly descent, it shows that these journalists began and are still beginning to realize the depth of this issue.

That being said, after delving deep into various articles, both those

of popular and scholarly descent, I have come to conclude that there has been a great amount of research done on this issue (much more than I had expected). Furthermore, the perspectives that these journalists take are eye-opening and provoke readers further interest into the topic of post-9/11 advertising.

To conclude… Journalists from a wide range of perspectives (both popular and

scholarly) criticized and praised advertisements after 9/11. Those who argued against post-9/11 ad campaigns deemed

these marketing strategies as ineffective because they both took advantage of Americans and attempted to cover up the nation’s flaws in regards to diversity.

Those who argued in defense of post-9/11 ad campaigns determined that these techniques focused on informing and involving the public in the wake of the attacks. They hinted at the idea that advertisers are not soulless, narcissistic creatures, but rather knowledgeable beings who actually care for the nation’s well-being.

**Although both perspectives argued a similar case, that of scholarly origin gave a more in-depth analysis.