which marks the third rhetorical pivot oaf the H.W. Bush administration. Yet this pivot is largely unnoticed precisely because the ‘new world order’ was not replaced with a more robust concept or really any articulation of international vision at all. In 1990, the President had seemed to be observing rather than influencing change at the international level, and that viewpoint would remain consistent in the final two years of his presidency. Bush would address the forty-sixth and forty-seventh General Assemblies. The objectives for the 1991 speech could have been written for 1989. Another memo outlined the objectives as (“DRAFT: UNGA SPEECH OUTLINE,”
September 10, 1991): “Demarcate clearly between Cold War and new era of cooperation that all together can shape if we shed Cold War mentality; Set forth a vision of the new world as a world community of nations/New World Order to be built by all, including blocks; Chart a general course for the UN and its specialized agencies,” among others.
The repudiation of Iraq’s invasion and the significance of a subsequent authorization for military action against Iraq, executed through the Security Council with the assistance of the
36 An Arab perspective on the crisis and the fissures within the Arab League help to explain why they sought to delay military action by President Bush and why a diplomatic outcome was unlikely to lead to Saddam’s unilateral withdraw (Khadduri, & Ghareeb, 2001).
Soviet Union, underscores just how much the world had changed. Intervention in the Middle East, particularly the provision of expressed permission for military action, simply would not have been possible during the Cold War. Further, the memo describes the President as the
“undisputed world leader,” speaking to an international community, “looking to the President for a State of the World speech with vision and his definitions of the New World Order,” while also noting, “he need not give definitions,” nor, “dictate specifics but would suggest an agenda of opportunities made possible by the new era of cooperation and invite others to join in shaping the New World Order.” While the hegemonic power of the United States was coming into focus, the flows and fissures from globalization were demanding the attention of local governments
everywhere. The peaceful world emerging in 1989 and defended in 1990 is showing strain by 1991.
The old saying that ‘all politics are local’ resonates here. While 1991 could have presented itself as another year in which the international community could have directed its attentions towards the establishment of permanent international institutions capable of enforcing the laws and norms thereby resulting in a new world order, attention instead turned to domestic or regional initiatives. In a positive turn, South African President F.W. de Klerk in February of 1991, speaking to his Parliament, set in motion the repealing of Apartheid laws (Wren, 1991).
However, a reunified Germany captured the attention of Europe. Proliferation, with the ever collapsing military of Russia in conjunction with the independence of the Baltic nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, encouraged the President to conclude his treaty on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in July. And the speech itself also points to the challenges presented by an increasingly globalized world. Bush (1991) notes:
In Europe and Asia, nationalist passions have flared anew, challenging borders, straining the fabric of international society. At the same time, around the world, many age-old conflicts still fester. You see signs of this tumult right here. The United Nations has mounted more peacekeeping missions in the last 36 months than during its first 43 years. And although we now seem mercifully liberated from the fear of nuclear holocaust, these smaller, virulent conflicts should trouble us all. We must face this challenge squarely: first, by pursuing the peaceful resolution of disputes now in progress; second and more importantly, by trying to prevent others from erupting.
Following the directive of administration advisors, the speechwriters constructed a speech in which the state of international politics is presented to the General Assembly. The Assembly is made aware of the U.S. point of view on the challenges facing the global community in the vaguest of terms. When Bush broaches the subject of Iraq and the continued sanctions and international pressure to disarm, or when discussing non-proliferation efforts with the Russian federation, the language of the speech is vague. The pattern holds when appealing for continued efforts towards the development of a free market.
As the post-Cold War era picks up steam, a rhetorical strategy premised on pragmatism and caution might be unlikely to be perceived as leadership, but communication strategists deemed the approach prudent. A memorandum between speechwriters Jennifer Grossman and Tony Snow elaborates on the debate. Grossman, picking up on Snow’s “hesitation in delivery specific proposals or decisive judgments – presumably given the fluidity of the ongoing Soviet crack-up,” argues that circumstances, “invite us to give a more thematic, philosophical and, yes, visionary speech than might be encouraged under ordinary circumstances.” Given the hierarchy
within the presidency, it is likely that these perceptions reflect their superiors. Indeed, Scowcroft was quoted as noting; “It is not necessarily in the interest of the United States to encourage the breakup of the Soviet Union” (Beschloss & Talbot, 1993, p. 102). Given this perspective, reflection and care were necessary. As Grossman understood it, the struggle over the ‘heart’ of the General Assembly address would be similar to the state of the union, it was struggle between,
“the list vs. the leitmotif … the tasks vs. the vision.” She affirms the prudence of a thematic approach to the speech given that, “this year’s UN has been far from business as usual.” If this was the strategic path to prudence and positive reception, the speech itself becomes unbalanced by the individual demands that the speech itself makes.
The speech diverges from a singular focus that mirrors Bush’s previously articulated vision for a community of nations to a speech that was loaded up with items important to domestic foreign policy and one particularly controversial item. Aside from the comments on Iraq, proliferation, and the global economy, significant internal discussion resulted in a demand for the repeal of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 that had equated Zionism with racism.37 Early draft outlines sketched in pencil (“Aboard Air Force One,” September 23, 1991) demonstrate that the administration was seeking a path for the repeal of 3379. While noting that values must be expressed, it questions how Zionism relates to these values. Whether repealing the resolution was an independent prerogative or the result of preconditions for Middle East peace talks the administration was attempting to broker, others within the administration
37 That resolution states: “Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen Intenrational Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called up all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology, Determines that
Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” (Resolution 3379, November 10, 1975).
offered their perspectives.38 A memo from Joe Duggan to Tony Snow framed the resolution as an Orwellian use of “language and symbols,” because the resolution, “desecrated the memory of Holocaust victims.”39 John Bolton (September 18, 1991) from the Department of State argued that the resolution was, “based on a despicable lie,” and, “seriously undercut the moral authority of the U.N.” The President in his final remarks took a strong stand. He called for repeal, arguing,
“To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself,” that, “this body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist,” and therefore, “by repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.” Unsurprisingly, the unexpected and controversial nature of the comments dominated domestic media coverage. The efforts of the President and the U.S. Mission to the UN proved successful when Resolution 3379 was repealed on December 17.
The 1992 address follows a similar pattern; it is weighted by a series of statements about what the United States contribution to the international order will be as opposed to articulating a sustained vision of international order. The President articulates three goals: peacekeeping, anti-proliferation and prosperity. The first two goals relate to the providing for the collective
international security. Bush orders the Secretary of Defense to organize multilateral peacekeeping training missions and to add peacekeeping to the curriculum of the military
38 In an attempt to facilitate peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israeli government, James Baker reached out to Yitzak Shamir, the Prime Minister of Israel, for a statement of conditions. One of those conditions was the repeal of Resolution 3379 and Baker (1995) in his memoirs claims that, “after consulting with the President, I called Shamir back early the next morning and pledged the United States to a ‘serious effort’ to repeal the Zionism resolution” (p. 495).
39 A memo also directs Tony Snow to be particularly attuned with the language Richard Haass, Special Assistant and National Security Council Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, on the Zionism resolution (“For Tony Snow from Joe Duggan,” September 19, 1991). This suggests that the language in the Joe Duggan memo originated in the National Security Council. The archives also record the existence of the resolution to be a personal affront to President Bush (“For Tony Snow re: UN Speech/McGroarty,” September 19, 1991).
academies. These efforts to enhance the possibility of success for peacekeeping operations signals a commitment to the rest of the world and suggests that the United States seeks to work with others as equals to ensure collective security and the international order. The second threat is proliferation, and he argues that the Security Council should lead the way on this front. He argues for making permanent the NPT, and towards nonproliferation goals, he redirects the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to “refocus its talents on providing technical support for nonproliferation, weapons monitoring and destruction, and global defense conversion. Under the direction of the Secretary of State, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency should be used not only in completing the traditional arms control agenda, but, just as importantly, in providing technical assistance on our new security agenda.” President Bush redirects portions of the military to aid multilateral peacekeeping efforts with no qualifications as to whether these missions would directly relate to U.S. interest, and directing an entire agency of the USFG to the task of multilateral non-proliferation efforts is no small matter. And with economics he references aid dependency and seeks to shift to an “economic relationship” which would “focus the U.S. assistance programs to building strong, independent economies that can become contributors to a healthy, growing global economy.” To facilitate growth, the President establishes a $1 billion growth fund. In each case, leadership of the United States features prominently but this leadership is deployed in areas that are presumed to be of collective interest to the international community.
The 1991 and 1992 addresses shift from grand discussions of what a post-Cold War international order is or should look like – including the responsibilities of nation states within this system – to an articulation of U.S. power and leadership. Essentially, these speeches move from a cosmopolitan articulation of freedom as entailing responsible action as a condition of
belonging to an international order to a rhetorical positioning of the United States as a benevolent hegemonic state.
4.4 Conclusion
The United Nations influenced Bush, and as ambassador and later president, Bush would work to influence the institution. What is undeniable is that his experience as ambassador created a deep appreciation not just for the institution but for those who worked there. While he did understand his position to be an advocate for U.S. positions within the institution, and while he maintained allegiance to the power politics of Kissinger and Nixon, he understood that there was an underlying universal desire for peace and security in the world. This was particularly evident for him when it came to matters that required votes of the General Assembly. Bush as
ambassador discovered that his personal style of diplomacy was able to sway the votes in some occasions of small states, particularly those in Africa. As a result, he was able to see the benefit of a sustained presence for the U.S. in the U.N. and frequently argued that the presence and leadership should be increased. While he recognized that during the Nixon administration, the institution was held hostage to the swirling winds of Cold War political maneuvering, he optimistically held out hope that the institution could live up to its mandate from 1945 in the future.
As President, George Bush again sought to use the forum of the United Nations to both influence the institution itself as well as global politics. Given his belief in a universal desire for peace, the President sought to articulate a vision of an international order based on democratic capitalism, which he believed would result in peace. Appeals premised on archetypal metaphors of freedom allowed Bush to first articulate a vision and then later, challenge nation states to adhere to this vision of order by sanctioning an invasion of Iraq as a model response to those
who would abstain or dissent from this order. So while the diplomatic cosmopolitanism specific to the George H.W. Bush Administration might have worked to facilitate solidification of a particular international order, the major rhetorical pivots of his address worked to undercut his leadership both at home and abroad. As Martin Medhurst (2006) notes, Bush missed his kairotic moment –he did not develop his rhetorical capability or let others do so for him – and he did not get the American public to identify with his vision. This chapter suggests that Bush’s diplomatic cosmopolitanism created both opportunity and peril.
In the years that Bush was President, the economy of the Soviet Union collapsed, the Warsaw Pact countries achieved independence, shortly thereafter twelve Baltic countries also became independent, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the contours of a unipolar international scene with the U.S. as hegemon took form. The foreign policy establishment and intelligence
community simply did not predict these events, with one noting that “anyone who claims to have predicted these events is either a liar, charlatan or both” (Berman & Jentleson, 1991). Thus, the rhetorical demands were contradictory: one the one hand, he was expected to “dance on the wall”
as an indication of the rightness of U.S. policy; on the other hand, stark declarations could present rhetorical traps given the unpredictable and unprecedented nature of events. President Bush recognized that there was little the U.S. could do to impact the internal affairs of nations, particularly former Soviet states, while recognizing that emerging fissures and power vacuums would require an international response where U.S. leadership was increasingly important. The inherent ambiguity of diplomatic cosmopolitanism allowed the President to articulate a historical narrative why the west had won while encouraging cautious yet pragmatic approach to action and the formation of policy that served the international community well.
The peril of Bush’s diplomatic cosmopolitanism was that it facilitated a rhetorical leadership style that was intentionally more careful and bureaucratic, which established a pronounced difference from his predecessor (Popadiuk, 2009). Intellectually, the President maintained a disposition of ‘do no harm,’ or what Mervin refers to as the ‘guardianship
presidency’ (Mervin, 1998). His addresses are intellectually and thematically consistent across the years. President Bush through his addresses often offered a defense and maintenance of what has already been agreed upon – international law – so should new developments arise, they should comport with this lawful model. Additionally, Bush’s preference for private over public communication required ‘wiggle room,’ or leaving options open for interlocutors not to lose face. His approach placed constraints on his public communication. Another way to think about this is that if you are engaged in diplomacy with other political elites, the strategy and the language and the message itself will be different. Those skills, the ability to recognize what your opponents needs to “save face” or what your opponent cannot concede, are not skills that
translate into deliberative rhetoric. It is a different style of political communication. Bush was now in a public position rather than a bureaucratic position stylistically and both he and the speechwriters struggled to adapt.
Our contemporary positions would allow for one to cynically read George H.W. Bush’s public address as simply using cosmopolitanism as a mask for a nationalist agenda, but a fairer reading of the man, his political history, and the trajectory of his administration suggests that he observed the world as he saw it, and his view was that democracy and capitalism emerged victorious. As a result, for Bush, liberal internationalism best described the world. But it is simply not the case that a new order emerged, but rather that a competing order had collapsed;
there was no other order but the surviving order of liberalism. This order proved difficult for
some as it offered no guarantees that the ‘losers’ would have an easy time adopting the types of reforms necessary to make the economic and political transition that Bush suggested was universally desirable and inevitable. In addition to the question of liberalism, then, we can note that his address extended beyond national self-interests. His respect for others and deference towards self-determination allowed other nations to join the international order without
punishment. It is the combinations of these features that allow for a better reading of both public address and how cosmopolitan appeals can be leveraged to read history in an attempt to
(re)create international order.
5 The Clinton Presidency: When Cosmopolitanism is the Only Rhetorical Resource Bill Clinton, because he lacked significant foreign policy experience and had focused his campaign on the priority of domestic issues, was not in a strong position to carry forward the internationalist vision of the Bush administration, nor to reconstitute the United Nations as a more capable international institution. In fact, it would have been difficult for any American president to rhetorically order the international landscape. During the Cold War, or when deeply engaged in trade, it was easier to negotiate bilaterally to resolve differences on topics like
subsidies or tariffs. But in a world of economic global interconnectedness where new markets are emerging, old markets are forced to evolve and trade flows reroute, the ability to exert unilateral control is increasingly difficult. Forums to mediate disputes (GATT, Doha, and the WTO) and international financing to increase competitiveness (World Bank) provide platforms for
international consultation and engagement, but these institutions provide rules for operation and mediation that may not be finally controllable by the leading economic powers. And control of capital and labor flows have slipped outside the sure grasp of American leadership, even though it was the United States who had dictated the shape of these organizations.
international consultation and engagement, but these institutions provide rules for operation and mediation that may not be finally controllable by the leading economic powers. And control of capital and labor flows have slipped outside the sure grasp of American leadership, even though it was the United States who had dictated the shape of these organizations.