The aim of this research paper is to analyse the language usage of politicians, in particular Tony Blair’s wording in regard to the third Gulf War. Hereby, the theories of identity and othering are used and combined with the theory of populism. The partnership between the USA and Great Britain is of course taken into account.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Research question
3. Historical overview
3.1 Impact of 9/11 on UK policies
3.2 Role of the UK
4. Theoretical approach
4.1 Theory of populism
4.2 Theory of identity
4.3 Othering
4.4 Discourse analysis
5. Current State of research
5.1 Relevance
6. Methodical approach
6.1 Operationalization
6.2 Material selection
7. Tony Blair’s Rhetoric
8. Analysis of Blair’s speech from Tuesday 18th of March 2003
8.1 Main statements of the speech
8.2 Tony Blair’s populist rhetoric
8.3 Tony Blair’s usage of othering
9. Results
10. Shortcomings
11. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This research paper aims to analyze how Prime Minister Tony Blair utilized specific language patterns to legitimize the United Kingdom's involvement in the 2003 Iraq war, despite significant domestic opposition. By applying a constructivist framework, the study examines how rhetorical devices and the discursive construction of identity served to justify military intervention.
- Analysis of populist rhetoric in political discourse.
- Investigation of "Othering" mechanisms regarding Iraq and its population.
- Application of social constructivist theories to foreign policy.
- Evaluation of Tony Blair’s speech to the House of Commons (March 18, 2003).
- Assessment of the relationship between rhetoric, legitimacy, and military action.
Excerpt from the Book
8.2 Tony Blair’s populist rhetoric
In this part of the Paper Blair’s speech is examined with respect of the four criteria provided by Pfahl-Traughber.
Regarding the first criterion, the following can be stated. Right in the beginning of the speech Blair is trying to unite the parliament by saying “I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine” and also shows how important the following vote is (Blair 2003). He also often uses the word “we” in his speech, for example “or to hold firm to the course we have set”, “we are asked to believe “, “We are now seriously asked“ (ibid.). As mentioned, he tries to unite the parliament beyond the borders of the two main parties and states that “the country and parliament reflect each other” (ibid.). By saying that the outcome of the Iraq war will “determine the way Britain and the world confront central security threat […]” Blair constantly refers to Britain as something independent of the rest of the (western) world (ibid.). When using we, Blair refer to the population, the British government or the UN. The entire text consists of 4926 words with the word “we” occurring 66 times. In many parts of the speech Blair is distinguishing between “we” – the British and “the others” in some cases the UN, but mostly Iraq or the Iraq government.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the context of the Iraq war, the role of Tony Blair, and the significance of political language in shaping public perception and policy.
2. Research question: Presents the central inquiry regarding how Tony Blair legitimized Britain’s participation in the war despite it being deeply unpopular.
3. Historical overview: Provides context on the impact of the 9/11 attacks on UK foreign policy and the evolving role of the UK regarding the Iraq conflict.
4. Theoretical approach: Discusses the key theoretical frameworks used, specifically the theories of populism, identity, othering, and discourse analysis.
5. Current State of research: Reviews existing literature on the Iraq war and identifies the lack of detailed discursive analysis of Blair’s rhetoric.
6. Methodical approach: Explains the criteria for operationalizing populist rhetoric and the methodology for selecting and analyzing the material.
7. Tony Blair’s Rhetoric: Examines Blair's general rhetorical style and his tendency to create common ground while painting a negative picture of his opponents.
8. Analysis of Blair’s speech from Tuesday 18th of March 2003: A detailed study of the speech, focusing on main statements, populist techniques, and the usage of othering.
9. Results: Evaluates the two hypotheses, concluding that Blair’s rhetoric fulfills criteria for both populism and othering.
10. Shortcomings: Discusses the limitations of the paper, including its nature as a case study and the focus on a single speaker.
11. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, noting that Blair successfully used rhetorical strategies to push for war, even if his attempts at legitimacy ultimately failed to gain popular support.
Keywords
Tony Blair, Iraq War, Constructivism, Populism, Othering, Identity, Political Rhetoric, Discourse Analysis, Legitimacy, Foreign Policy, United Kingdom, War on Terror, House of Commons, Security, 9/11
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how Tony Blair, as the British Prime Minister, used language and rhetorical strategies to legitimize the UK’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq war.
What are the core thematic fields addressed in the study?
The study focuses on political science and international relations, specifically exploring the nexus between populism, social identity theory, and foreign policy discourse.
What is the central research question?
The research asks: "How did Tony Blair legitimize the British participation in the Iraq war?"
Which scientific method is applied?
The author uses a constructivist approach combined with discourse analysis, operationalizing the criteria of populism to evaluate the language used by Blair.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the historical context of the Iraq war, the theories of populism and identity, and an in-depth analysis of Blair's speech delivered on March 18, 2003.
Which keywords define the scope of the paper?
Key terms include Tony Blair, Iraq War, populism, othering, identity, political rhetoric, discourse analysis, and legitimacy.
How does the paper differentiate between "we" and "the others"?
The study highlights how Blair constructs an inclusive "we" (the British/the West) while simultaneously constructing an antagonistic "other" (Iraq/Saddam Hussein/terrorist regimes) to justify military action.
Does the author conclude that Blair’s rhetoric was effective?
The author concludes that while Blair’s rhetoric was effective in terms of satisfying his own political goals and the parliamentary vote, his attempts to gain legitimacy from the broader British population are considered to have failed.
- Citar trabajo
- Jonathan Lobmeyer (Autor), 2020, The British Participation in the Iraq War, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1162295
