The aim of this thesis is to investigate how American power is adapting to a changing post- Cold War global landscape. It is commonly accepted that many of the most visible cultural expressions of globalisation are American. However, contemporary accounts have proven inadequate in assessing how such forces have helped provide the infrastructure for America’s global dominance. With growing debate over the decline of American influence, the thesis intends to address how American statecraft is attempting to redefine itself for a digital age. With the accelerated transmission of information, images and sounds, nation-states are gradually losing the ability to either dictate their official narrative or control their global image. The new info-war that lies at the heart of contemporary American statecraft thus involves the wholesale integration of struggles over information, technology, communication and culture into the conflict itself. The thesis, therefore, investigates how American military and diplomatic efforts are both shaping and being reshaped by modern techno-culture. The thesis pieces together a contemporary genealogy of American cultural diplomacy in the Middle East from the Cold War through to the “war on terror”. This genealogy pays particular attention to both the continued hold of civilisationist discourses and the shifting question of race in American foreign policy – from the instrumentalisation of jazz at the height of the ideological antagonism of the Cold War, to rap music as a soundtrack to American Empire. The attention paid to African American culture aims to highlight the ways in which the radical traditions of struggle for freedom from the underside of the American Empire are transforming our world today for both better and worse. The thesis concludes by contextualising the evolving relationship between consumption, technology, communication and (national) security, and situating the Occupied Palestinian Territories within these global capital and cultural flows. This takes the form of an analysis of the multiple local and international socio-economic initiatives taking hold in the West Bank – from governmental institutions and NGOs, to the business sector and consumer industries – and their particular attempts at reshaping Palestinian public spheres.

In 2009, with the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global financial crisis, fears of American decline were compounded by the 'rise of China' and the potential for a transformation in the Asia-Pacific geopolitical environment that would destabilise the region's post-war order and challenge U.S. regional hegemony. In the same year, the Obama administration initiated a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy towards the Asia-Pacific that became known as the strategic rebalance. This thesis examines the way in which the Obama administration has responded to the Asia-Pacific's regional geopolitics through its signature rebalance strategy in order to maintain its hegemonic position. This research contributes to IR by using a constructivist approach and discourse analysis to interpret hegemony as both an intrinsic part of U.S. identity, and a social, asymmetrical relationship, derived from multiple and overlapping sources of power. Hegemony is an asymmetric relationship that requires consent from the Asia-Pacific nations for its ongoing legitimacy. The rebalance strategy is an effort to make the U.S. ontologically secure - to secure its hegemonic identity in the Asia-Pacific. In examining how the U.S. reproduces its regional hegemony from these angles, this thesis develops the constructivist focus on ideas, identity and narrative as being intrinsic to foreign policy output. This approach allows for consideration of the co-constituted relationships between the belief system of American exceptionalism, the 'rise of China' narrative, U.S. hegemonic identity formation and U.S. foreign policy practice. The empirical analysis of U.S. hegemony applies Barnett and Duvall's taxonomy of power to examine the interplay between the different components of American hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. This holistic approach to U.S. hegemony and the exertion of power determines that the U.S. does not solely rely on coercive military power to achieve foreign policy outcomes. Instead, this thesis interprets the rebalance strategy as part of complex processes of social bargains, identity, narratives and forms of power working collectively in the production of U.S. foreign policy.

This thesis examines the methods through which the administration of George W. Bush utilized the events surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) to legitimize a type of imperial American foreign policy. The central argument of this research is that 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to present a perceived shift in the danger and threat that America faced, thus legitimating a more aggressive foreign policy, which this thesis categorizes as ‘informal imperialism’. It argues that an American grand strategy of global dominance is not new, but rather constitutes a continuation of policies whose ideological roots date back to the 1990s. This thesis explores this argument through the lens of critical geopolitics (CGP), which provides a critical and interdisciplinary framework for unpacking geographical assumptions in geopolitics and questions how they function within ideology. CGP serves as a framework for understanding the use of language in constructing and normalizing imperial policies in the United States after 9/11. Methodologically, this thesis used critical discourse analysis (CDA), which provides tools for analyzing discourse, and examining how language is the key to understanding how power functions. This thesis deploys a critical analysis and definition of American imperialism and the contributions of CGP to the debate of a ‘post 9/11 world’. A CDA of the writings of key people in the Bush administration traces their foreign policy and its ideological roots. Further, a CDA of post 9/11 discourses focuses on the changing geography of danger, fear, threat and the act of Othering as it relates to a post 9/11 world. Finally, a CDA of the discourses surrounding the Global War on Terror is conducted, arguing that the frames set up in relation to a new and dangerous world paved the way for policies that justified a war with Iraq.

Discussions of blogging as a form of political communication have mainly centred on the context of election campaigns, national domestic issues, citizen political blogging and mainstream media blogs. The rise of government blogging as an alternative news source in the aftermath of the 2003 war in Iraq, however, is much less addressed by scholars. This thesis examines the case of the US State Department blog Dipnote in order to study the dynamics of blogging as foreign policy communication and public diplomacy. The focus of the analysis is on posts relating to the Middle East, towards which US foreign policy attention was primarily geared after 9/11. The broader research question of this thesis attempts to determine the relative importance of professionalization, personalization and ideology in influencing the content on the official foreign policy blog of the U.S. government, in order to advance the theoretical understanding of blogging in the context of foreign policy communication and public diplomacy. A content analysis of blog posts was conducted between the period of September 2007, when the blog was launched, and March 2010. In addition to this, several interviews were conducted with the management of the blog at the State Department. Furthermore, by comparing the blog content under the Bush and Obama administrations, this study was able to trace patterns of continuities and discontinuities over time. The analytical framework is adapted from Farrell and Webb’s (2002) professionalization framework, and as such it breaks down the blog’s elements into technical, resource, and thematic developments. First, it is argued that the utilization of the blog as a cultural space is a new interpretation for foreign policy communication not previously considered in studies of government blogging in political communication or public diplomacy research. Second, blogging enables a new form of official yet casual communication which serves to legitimize American activities and presence in the Middle East through personalization and de-ideologization of content that make the blog a source of soft power. Third, the blog is a “protected space” (adapted from Gumbrecht, 2004) where the government maintains editorial control, low immediacy, low interactivity and low engagement. Overall, the findings point to the classic contradictions that the government faces both offline and online in the digital era; between openness and control, as well as secrecy and transparency, especially in the foreign policy context. In conclusion, the analysis suggests that blogging is part of an evolution and does not amount to a revolution in political communication and public diplomacy. I thus argue that in their adoption of new technology, the government moves from a new technology experimental phase to a new technology consolidation phase.

In recent years a growing number of scholars within the field of Foreign Policy Analysis have asserted that an understanding of the interface between national identity and foreign policy is of paramount importance. Indeed one of the driving forces behind the surge of interest in this topic area is the recognition that foreign policy decision-makers are not immune to the effects of national identity, being themselves a product of the society in which they live. This body of work seeks to highlight the role American exceptionalism played in influencing the Bush administration’s foreign policy decision-making process following the events of September 11th. For many Americans, the events of September 11th served as a cruel re-minder that the United States remained vulnerable to outside attack much like it had been prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Both events are now indelibly scarred into the American psyche. While each attack left Americans with a sense of vulnerability, they could have at least consoled themselves with the thought that Pearl Harbor was a reaction to the perceived threat that the United States would pose on entering the Second World War. September 11th only lead Americans to the sobering realization that the citizens of other nations took a growing affront to their very ideals and way of life. Sensing this insecurity, the Bush administration seized the opportunity presented by September 11th and began reshaping the identity of the United States, its enemies and the rest of the world in order to justify its foreign policy. This thesis suggests that in the absence of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the resultant shift in identity, the neoconservatives would not have had the same chance to exert their considerable influence on the administration. In order to achieve its objectives, this research notes that the Bush administration employed a foreign policy decision-making process that not only circumvented executive branch proficiency but also often completely disregarded it. Moreover it is also apparent that key foreign policy decision-makers were overconfident in America’s exceptional nature, mainly its economic and military superiority, which consequently clouded its assessment of public diplomacy’s value. Examination of the administration’s defense posture in the wake of September 11th has revealed that many of its early initiatives did not match the threats faced by the United States. One thing is certain, in the absence of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Bush administration would have been unable to justify a foreign policy doctrine as outlined in the 2002 National Security Strategy. Finally this research seeks to add to the field through an assessment of public opinion in particular that of the Facebook Generation, an up and coming cohort. Appreciation of public opinion is crucial as it provides a perspective through which to understand how the American public sees the nation’s self-image and how it wants the country to act on the international stage. From a foreign policy decision-making perspective, this information is invaluable because it reveals what types of risks the public is willing to take. As a result, it is imperative that researchers begin to understand this generation’s point of view, given the uncertain nature of the international environment that lies ahead.

This study examines the relationship of democracy promotion to national security in US strategy through an examination of the influence of geopolitical, bureaucratic and organisational considerations on the effort to create a coherent strategic approach fusing democracy promotion and national security under the Reagan administration. This process highlighted geopolitical and organisational tensions between democracy promotion and US national security. Groups within the administration, Congress and the private sphere disagreed over whether US geopolitical interests required the limited deployment of democracy promotion against Soviet Communism or a more expansive effort aimed at both Communist and pro-US dictatorships. These debates were linked to clashes over the credibility and effectiveness of competing state-centred or privately-implemented organisational frameworks. The organisational resolution was the National Endowment for Democracy, which intervened on a tactical basis in dictatorships, with US assistance, to safeguard US national security by supporting pro-US democratic groups. However the concept of privately-implemented democracy promotion blocked agreement on geopolitical objectives and the creation of a coherent strategy reconciling democracy promotion and US national security. Tensions between these two imperatives continue to recur and can be resolved only on a case-by-case basis rather than at the strategic level.

US foreign policy during the Cold War has been analysed from a number of perspectives, generating large bodies of literature attempting to explain its origins, its development and its conclusion. Within the discipline of International Relations these debates have tended to be led by scholars focusing on events at the system level. However, there are still many questions left only partially explained. In large part this is because these accounts restrict themselves to a single level of analysis, either the international system, or the structure of the state and society. The first level of analysis, focusing on the role of individuals, has largely been excluded from International Relations. It is often left to historians to incorporate the role of individual decision makers into their studies. The problem for international relations students, however, is that their arguments run the risk of determinism. They come close to advocating that the course of history is shaped by these external forces and there is little if no room for alternate courses to be steered. They have, intentionally or otherwise, removed human agency and choice from the equation. This thesis argues that structural theories, and any approach that limits itself to one level of analysis, are inadequate to explain the development of US foreign policy. Instead, it is necessary to incorporate the first level of analysis in order to bring human agency back into International Relations and provide a more detailed explanation of US foreign policy. The present study proposes an analytical framework which incorporates presidential agency into a multi-level analysis of US foreign policy during the Cold War. Drawing on Foreign Policy Analysis, International Relations theory, presidential studies and the historiography of US foreign policy, this thesis constructs a multi-level case study comparison of the foreign policies of Presidents Truman and Reagan. It argues that the worldview of the president is central to agenda setting in US foreign policy making and that the management style of the president influences both decision-making and the implementation of US foreign policy. Evidence to support this is drawn from detailed empirical analysis of Truman’s foreign policy of containment in Korea and Reagan’s foreign policy of rollback in Nicaragua.

Following the end of the Cold War and the political fall-out from the Tiananmen incident, the US and China ended the last century and began the new one with three well publicised fall outs: the 1995-96 Taiwan Straits Crisis, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and the Spy Plane Incident in 2001. In each of these incidents the two states immediately resorted to confrontation and animosity before shifting towards a peaceful resolution. How did these transformations become possible? How did this relationship plunge towards confrontation over three apparent accidents? What factors were shaping these events and the main actor's behaviour? This thesis provides an alternative framework for analysing these interactions; one that takes into account dynamics other than those emphasised in neo-utilitarian approaches to IR. Emphasising social dynamics, I ask a series of ‘how possible' questions so as to lend insight into the processes of change that have taken place. I examine each case in detail and develop an argument that focuses upon investigating how the situations arose, how meaning was constructed and renegotiated, how identities were produced, and how emotional dynamics were drawn upon. Chapter One introduces the puzzles that this thesis will be addressing before setting out the conceptual focus of the research. Chapter Two provides a theoretical discussion relating to the current literature surrounding US-Chinese relations, before setting out the theoretical assumptions and methodological tools that I employ. Chapters Three, Four and Five represent the empirical ‘heart' of the thesis, with each providing detailed analysis of the interaction in question. To finish, Chapter Six highlights the themes that have emerged over the course of the empirical investigations, before concluding with a discussion relating to the contribution to the literature and possible avenues of future research.

The struggle between the President and the Congress over the power to control the use of military force is an enduring dimension of U.S. foreign policy. In the 20th century Arthur Schlesinger labeled the growth of Presidential war power the “Imperial Presidency.” While some scholars have attempted to explain the expansion of Presidential power based on the Cold War or nuclear weapons, there has been little work studying the link between America’s ascending role in international legal frameworks and this domestic legal transformation. In this dissertation, I argue that America’s participation in international legal frameworks, such as the United Nations and NATO, has been a central factor in enabling the growth of Presidential war power. These international frameworks allow the President to circumvent Congress and to assert that the use of military force was something other than a ‘war’ that would need Congressional authorization. In case studies of pre-WWII aid to Great Britain, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, I demonstrate how the rise of executive war power relied on America’s growing participation in international legal frameworks. The dissertation contributes to the nexus of International Relations and Constitutional scholarship. It offers a unique interpretation of Presidential war power while also offering new insights on the nature of the United States’ relationship with international legal frameworks. I argue that participation in international legal frameworks has been ‘democracy-undermining’ as the President utilizes those frameworks to circumvent the Constitution’s restrictions on Presidential war power.

Bodies - be they fleshy or other - are simultaneously made by, made of, moved by, and the makers and movers of other bodies. Driven by the questions how do bodies emerge? what makes bodies move? and what can bodies do? bodies are placed at the very centre of this book in order to explain and show, not only how such bodily making and re-making - (re)making - and movement is done, but also why awareness and understanding of the processes and practices involved in the continual and ongoing (re)making and moving of bodies - of three particular kinds in particular (bodies of power/knowledge, humanised bodies, and bodies politic) - is vital to the study of international relations, conflict, and security and thus to the discipline of International Relations (IR). In short, bodies - of these three kinds in particular - require foregrounding because international relations, conflicts, and security practices are conducted by, on, and for bodies (humanised bodies and bodies politic in particular), according to bodies (namely referred to as dominant bodies of power/ knowledge, which become fleshed out as material bodies including humanised bodies and bodies politic and enact statecraft, further down the line). Moreover, as demonstrated in this book, which takes up the broad empirical case of post-9/11 American body politics and two case studies into the visual body politics of suffering and dead American soldiers since 9/11 and the 2013 Camp Delta hunger strike, there is much to be gained by taking the very particular embodiments of bodies into account, as every body is unique and it is according to distinctive bodily features, malaise/ailments, and feelings that bodies are moved to act (and in turn touch and move other bodies) and continually become other than they are.