Rhetorical Diplomacy and U.S. International Influence: the Path of Democracy in Burma
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Rhetorical Diplomacy and U.S. International Influence: The Path of Democracy in Burma A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Aaron J. Little IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ronald W. Greene, Adviser Tun Myint, Co-Adviser August 2015 Copyright © 2015 by Aaron J. Little All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I could not have completed this dissertation without the help of my translators in Minnesota: thank you Kyaw, Thuzar, and Mimi—you made my field research in Burma possible. Special thanks to May, Andrew, Shin, Ye, and other fearless collaborators in Burma who helped facilitate my surveys and interviews throughout Burma. Thank you to my Father and Mother, Richard and Mary Little for always being there for me, for our always interesting conversations about world affairs, and for ever pushing me toward the path of excellence. Thank you to my sister Rebecca Leonard whose care and wisdom helped me overcome obstacles and adversities - your guidance made all the difference. Special thanks to my good friends Anne Di Napoli and Ed Poffenberger who offered me a calming space where I could deal with ordeals of the past and present and move on to a better future. Thanks to my good friend Colin Miller whose intellectual prowess always provides finely crafted debates which are always exhilarating - my life would be less exciting without you. Thanks to Valerie Leonard whose sensibility helped shape the planning stages of a project that would take to far away and often dangerous places. Special thanks to my long suffering partner Amy Morasch - your love and healing were always a space for restoration and joy. Thanks to Professor Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch, your guidance always helped shape my grandiose ideas into doable projects that made sense. Finally, my enduring gratitude to Professor Ron Greene, who pushed and pulled my thinking into a coherency I could not have achieved alone—the completion of this dissertation is a testament to his patience, guidance, and scholarly brilliance. i DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to those who endure oppression because of their belief in democracy, who work for free and fair elections, and who continue to hope for freedom from fear of their rulers. ii ABSTRACT Rhetorical diplomacy involves pressing U.S. foreign policy initiatives and vision of U.S. presidents through their rhetorical actions. In the rhetorical presidency paradigm the president encounters a resistant regime or government who refuses to pass or adopt U.S. policy. In order to press a regime a president then must form alliances with two parties: the first are those with whom the resistant regime is allied. This is commonly accomplished by influencing trade associations or regional associations with whom the U.S. has alliances and who then may force the resistant regime to acquiesce to U.S. demands. The second group are those social movement actors within the resistant governments country who press the regime internally. These actions involve giving speeches, remarks, and statements by the president and those who represent the Executive Branch. No other international leader, at the present, has the prestige and capability of speaking to world peoples and leaders with such rhetorical impact, and these rhetorical impacts are made possible through rhetorical diplomacy without the high cost of military intervention. The Burmese pro-democracy remains one of the few cases where, through presidential diplomacy, a totalitarian regime has acquiesced to the demands of local and nonviolent social movements without foreign military intervention. This dissertation examines the last two decades of U.S. presidential involvement in the Burmese democracy movement and assesses how rhetorical diplomacy has successfully motivated a resistant military regime to institute democratic reforms. I also analyze the political, iii financial, and military relationships involved in rhetorical diplomacy that presidents must balance. This dissertation provides a space for Burmese peoples and democratic leaders to voice their opinions concerning U.S. involvement in their country. The second half of this dissertation analyzes surveys and interviews I conducted in Burma in the Summer of 2014, where I asked respondents to assess their agreement with U.S. policy, strategy, and engagement style. Thus, this dissertation offers a comprehensive analysis of rhetorical diplomacy and explains how rhetoric of U.S. presidents are meaningful to those who U.S. foreign policy ostensibly assists. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables. ix List of Figures. x Introduction. 1 Chapter 1: Defining the Rhetorical Presidency. 11 Definition of the Rhetorical Presidency. 13 The Rhetorical Presidency and Reason. 15 Rhetorical Action and Audience. 22 Argumentation and the Rhetorical Presidency. 24 Positioning the Rhetorical Presidency Within Society. 27 A Rhetorical Presidency That Shifts Public Opinion. 33 The Rhetorical Presidency and the Modern Media. 39 Rhetorical Diplomacy. 42 Public Memory and the International Audience. 53 Social Movements and U.S. Involvement in Foreign Affairs. 57 Social Movements, Rhetorical Diplomacy, and Global Media. 62 Rhetorical Diplomacy and Assistance of Embattled Social Movements. 73 Hearing Rhetorical Diplomacy. 75 Rhetorical Diplomacy Empowered by Human Rights.. 79 Rhetorical Diplomacy Engagement. 82 Going Global: Social Movements Shift the Balance of Power. 85 Chapter 2: A Brief History of the Burmese Pro-Democracy Movement. 88 A Growing Storm: Junta Mismanagement of Economy. 89 A Social Movement Forms. 92 The Killing: A Spark Ignites Revolt. 100 August 8, 1988—Mass Protests. 104 Aftermath of the 1988 Protests. 111 Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis. 118 Cyclone Nargis.. 125 A New Engagement With the United States. 128 2015 Elections and Beyond. 132 Conclusion. 136 Chapter 3: Understanding Our Post-Cold War Status: Bill Clinton’s Rhetorical Diplomacy and Burma Speeches. 138 Defeating George H. W. Bush—Clinton Pushes a Domestic Agenda.. 144 Clinton’s Rhetorical Diplomacy of Nonviolent Engagement and Multilateralism.. 148 v Analysis: Message to the Congress on Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, May 20, 1997. 152 Empowering Rhetorical Diplomacy: Clinton’s Foreign Policy of Economic Globalization. 158 Clinton’s Foreign Policy of Democracy Promotion.. 162 Clinton’s Foreign Policy of Human Rights. 166 Analysis: Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright: Pre-taped Remarks for Radio Free Asia’s Special Broadcast to Burma, May 27, 1999. 172 Complications in Clinton’s Foreign Policy Paradigms. 179 The End of an Era—Clinton’s Final Years. 184 Conclusion. 185 Chapter 4: America in a Post 9/11 World: George W. Bush’s Foreign Policy and Burma Democracy Rhetoric. 189 The Evangelical Presidency: The United States as a Missionary of Freedom. 190 Bush Foreign Policy: Unilateral Action. 192 Bush Foreign Policy: The War on Terror.. 204 Analysis: Secretary of State Colin Powell “It’s Time to Turn the Tables on Burma’s Thugs,” Wall Street Journal—June 12, 2003. 209 Distracted From Asia: China Gains the Advantage. 216 President Bush Addresses the United Nations General Assembly— The United Nations Headquarters—September 25, 2007. 220 Conclusion. 229 Chapter 5: The Rhetorical Diplomacy of Barack Obama: An Analysis of Nobel Prize and Burma Speeches. 233 The Obama Foreign Policy Shift. 236 Obama’s Foreign Policy of Human Rights. 241 Obama’s Foreign Policy of Multilateral Cooperation. 245 Obama’s Foreign Policy of Engagement. 253 Analysis of Obama Nobel Peace Prize Lecture. 255 Obama Distances His Administration From George W. Bush.. 265 Obama Deliberates Global Policy. 269 Obama’s Moral Imagination. 271 Obama’s Burma Speeches and Statements. 274 Hillary Rodham Clinton, Burma’s Elections, Press Statement, Washington, DC, November 7, 2010.. 276 Remarks by President Obama at the University of Yangon, Yangon, Burma, November 19, 2012.. 285 Conclusion. 295 vi Chapter 6: Survey and Interview Methods.. 300 Early Challenges: Selecting Excerpts for Reception Analysis. 301 Lost and Found in Translation—Constructing a Survey in Burmese. 308 Negotiating With University of Minnesota—Twin Cities IRB. 309 Limitations. 311 Field Research in Yangon. 318 Field Research in Shan State. 320 Field Research in Mandalay.. 325 Conclusion. 328 Chapter 7: Results and Analysis of Survey and Interview Data. 331 Opinions of Presidents and Political Views.. ..