DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy, Identity and Anti-Americanism in Turkey: Implications for United States-Turkey Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy, Identity and Anti-Americanism in Turkey: Implications for United States-Turkey Relations Democracy, Identity and Anti-Americanism in Turkey: Implications for United States-Turkey Relations Jeff Easterling Honor Scholar April 9, 2013 2 Abstract In light of persistent anti-American in Turkey and nascent populism in Turkish foreign policy, this article will investigate how anti-Americanism is created in Turkey and it's meaning for Turkish-American bilateral relationship. Because anti-Americanism is generated by conflicts in national values, this article historically and socially constructs the two predominant political culture types in Turkey: Kemalism and Islam. This article will then identify the governmental, societal, and systemic factors contribute to antagonization of Turkish national identity by American foreign policy.1 In turn the article will offer methods as to how the United States can confront anti-Americanism and reconcile its actions with Turkish society. In my findings, anti- Americanism does not dictate all policy actions that are against American positions, but the current government, accountable to a newly emergent national identity, is susceptible to this sentiment. 1 Three of five levels of Rosenau’s International relations pre-theory. 3 A Paradigm Shift People trying to label the United States-Turkey bilateral relationship will find it more difficult to do so than they expect. All White House administrations since Bush senior have given special titles to the country, considering it a valuable ‘strategic partner’, ‘model country’, an example of ‘Muslim democracy’, etc. Both countries have significant military uses for the other. Turkey imports many of its arms from America and earns money renting out valuable military bases to the United States.2 Yet, beyond the military needs of both countries, it is a partnership without much depth. Economic ties are substantial in and of themselves, but neither country is a truly a significant trading partner of the other. Institutional links are likewise rather scarce. In America, Turkey only occasionally registers in the mass media is not subject of common discussion or debate. For Americans, it is only a rather distant country. But the United States is not very far away from the thoughts of Turks. American events in the Middle East concern them all too well, and American soldiers are stationed in their own land. There is no proof for any takeover of Turkey by the United States, but as their fears are supplied by past American behavior in the region and reinforced through sensational rumors of American conspiracy against Turkey, and both of these factors are reinforced by a political culture that developed largely out of opposition to foreign powers. By several estimates, most of the Turkish people regard the United States as their greatest security threat. However extraordinary these beliefs might seem to an American reader, who would know of their country’s war weariness, one cannot be patronizing. The assumption that Turkish fears have, that American power can be effectively projected throughout the world, and therefore at Turkey, is 2 United States, Congressional Research Service, Turkey Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti ([Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, 2012), pg. 33. 4 mostly correct. They only need to travel the massive American Airbase outside of Adana, Incirlik, within their own borders to confirm their beliefs of America as a global power that can project its power throughout the world. More troublingly, a number of politicians even harbor these beliefs.3 Of course, there is a difference between capability and intention. While Washington can project its power into Europe and the Middle East, there is no reason to suppose that it is actively working against Turkish interests. Nevertheless, because many Turkish people consider the United States a legitimate threat, it is important to consider why a security dilemma is assumed. A strict realist reading of the situation fails to explain the situation: Turkey is a member of NATO and military ally of the United states, and while the Soviet Union no longer borders Turkey, Russia is not very far away. If Turkish perceptions are not strictly realist, how do they rationalize the international system? Many Turks began to assume a security dilemma against the United States when United States policy inadvertently lead the to the creation of a Kurdish safe zone in northern Iraq, out of which an autonomous Kurdish majority polity has emerged. As the United States unintentionally offended the idea of the Turkish Anatolian homeland, Turkish fears were informed by their country’s foundational history, in which the West tried to extinguish the newly formed republic.() This triggered what Katzenstein and Keohane term as sovereign-nationalist anti- Americanism. According to them, “sovereign nationalists focus on two values: the importance of not losing control over the terms by which polities are inserted in world politics and the inherent 3 Claire Berlinski, "A Nation of Conspiracies," Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2010, accessed November 4, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870413140457. 5 importance and value of collective national identities.” 4 In the case of Turkey, the latter has occurs. Ankara and Washington are not strategic rivals. They are not locked against each other for regional political supremacy, so Turks do not resent The United States as the Germans resented the British empire in years prior to the first world war. However, the United States has inadvertently offended both of the predominant sets of political values in Turkey, and has thus confronted the Turkish people’s collective identity. In the past, this might have led to a conflict with the military establishment alone, as it was the highest political power in the country. This would have made it an easier situation to handle diplomatically, as demonstrated by the Cyprus dispute, in which the United States needed only to contend with the attitudes. Yet, now the United States must contend with a foreign policy that is, to significant measure, popularly determined, as democratization in Turkey has placed legitimacy in the majority, rather than a political ideal. Washington must now mind how the majority of Turks think in conducting its policy with Turkey. Likewise, the Turkish government must do the same. The people of Turkey did not always fear the United States as it does now. There was a time in which U.S military presence elucidated praise instead of spite. Istanbulites could hardly be any happier to see the USS Missouri, delivering the body of a respected Turkish ambassador to America drop anchor on April 5, 1946. For the Turks at harbor, the popular attitude was that the Russians were still their chief threat after hundreds of years and America was an esteemed protector that respected its allies’ territorial integrity. Despite Turkey’s distrust of foreign 4 Robert O. Keohane and Peter J. Katzenstein, "Anti-Americanisms," Policy Review 139 (October/November 2006): pg. 5, accessed February 4, 2013, GALE. 6 powers, America was very far away and did not have the imperial notoriety that the Russians, British or French had.5 Yet, as cold war politics ensued for another forty years, Turkish attitudes changed as America was no longer a distant friend as much as an interfering, but necessary, security partner. However, Turkey and the United States merely disagreed upon a few security matters. The United States did little to offend Turkish national psyche, and, also importantly, the people themselves had little means of airing these grievances. However, political developments in the Middle East through the 1990s and early 2000s changed this. The establishment of de facto independent Kurdish-majority polity in Northern Iraq was made possible by the U.S. enforced no-fly zone. As conflict against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party persisted in Turkey, both the Turkish state and its people felt threatened by the presence of this polity that seemed a plausible foundation for an irredentist Kurdish state.6 United States’ actions, and many began to suspect that America actively worked against Turkish interests. Yet, it was not until the historical 2002 parliamentary elections were held that the people’s views were more integrated into government policy. Thus, the AK party, the victorious party of the 2002 elections, would act more in line with the people’s wishes. Although this would not be the first time elections have occurred in Turkey, it can be characterized as a regime change. The established general and officer political class, which had long dominated Turkish politics, lost legitimacy in the eyes of the Turkish people. The Kemalist principles they used as a mandate by which they ruled the country, are still elemental features of Turkish politics, but Islam and democracy gained traction. Although a major economic downturn greatly contributed to the AK party’s electoral victory, other 5 Stephen Kinzer, Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future (New York: Times Books, 2010). 6 United States, Congressional Research Service, Iraq Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard ([Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2007), pg. 12. 7 oppositional parties, most notably the CHP, did not perform nearly as spectacularly as the AK party in areas that secularist parties tended to perform well. The legitimacy of the current government, unlike past governments, is not founded upon the memory of Atatürk, but unprecedented popular mandate. Civil liberties remain weak. The current government blatantly resorts to widespread media repression. Yet it is still the strongest civilian government Turkey has ever had and widespread support remains. By and large, Turkey has become more democratic.7 This is not to ignore that a rather large number of journalists have been jailed in the last several years for speaking out against government policies against the Kurdish minority, and many other persistent issues remain.8 Civil liberties, thus, continue to suffer as they did prior to the AK government, but for the first time, legitimacy lies in how the people vote.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The New Sultan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey by Soner Cagaptay Tuesday, July 31, 2018
    Issue 52 » The New Sultan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey by Soner Cagaptay Tuesday, July 31, 2018 The failed coup of July 15, 2016 has irreversibly transformed Turkish politics. Although the coup attempt was thankfully thwarted, the path that Erdogan chose to take after the coup—using the state of emergency powers he was given to go specifically after coup plotters, to embark instead on a much broader campaign against all dissidents, many of whom possessed no ties to the coup in any form— highlights an unfortunate truth about the country: Turkey is in a deep crisis. The country is polarized between supporters and opponents of Erdogan, who has won successive elections in Turkey since 2002 on a platform of right-wing populism. Erdogan has demonized and cracked down on electoral constituencies that are not likely to vote for him, a strategy that has Image credit: Poster Collection, Cairo Punch 0111, Hoover dramatically worsened polarization in Turkey, which is now sharply split between pro- and anti-Erdogan Institution Archives. camps: the former, a conservative and Turkish-nationalist right-wing coalition, believes that the country is paradise; the latter, a loose group of leftists, secularists, liberals, and Kurds, thinks that it lives in hell. More alarmingly, terror groups such as the hard-leftist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the jihadist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are taking advantage of this chasm in Turkey, adding bloodshed and sharpening the divide even further. Between summer 2015 and the end of 2016 alone, Turkey suffered 33 major ISIS and PKK terror attacks, which killed almost 550 people.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations
    Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations Updated November 9, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41368 SUMMARY R41368 Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations November 9, 2020 U.S.-Turkey tensions have raised questions about the future of bilateral relations and have led to congressional action against Turkey, including informal holds on major new Jim Zanotti arms sales (such as upgrades to F-16 aircraft) and efforts to impose sanctions. Specialist in Middle Nevertheless, both countries’ officials emphasize the importance of continued U.S.- Eastern Affairs Turkey cooperation and Turkey’s membership in NATO. Observers voice concerns about the largely authoritarian rule of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Clayton Thomas Turkey’s polarized electorate could affect Erdogan’s future leadership. His biggest Analyst in Middle Eastern challenge may be structural weaknesses in Turkey’s economy—including a sharp Affairs decline in Turkey’s currency—that have worsened since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic began. The following are key factors in the U.S.-Turkey relationship. Turkey’s strategic orientation and U.S./NATO basing. Traditionally, Turkey has relied closely on the United States and NATO for defense cooperation, European countries for trade and investment, and Russia and Iran for energy imports. A number of complicated situations in Turkey’s surrounding region—including those involving Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh (a region disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan), and Eastern Mediterranean energy exploration—affect its relationships with the United States and other key actors, as Turkey seeks a more independent role. President Erdogan’s concerns about maintaining his parliamentary coalition with Turkish nationalists may partly explain his actions in some of the situations mentioned above.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Muting the Trumpets of Sabotage
    Muting the Trumpets of Sabotage: Saudi Arabia, the US and the Quest to Securitize Iran1 Dr Simon Mabon [email protected] In recent years, the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran has become increasingly influential in shaping the nature of Middle Eastern politics, with the two exerting influence across the region in an attempt to increase their power and to reduce that of the other. Amidst an increasingly fractious region, this article explores Saudi Arabia's attempts to securitize Iran to actors in the US. The signing of the nuclear agreement and the failure of the US to move beyond normal politics signals the failure of Riyadh’s efforts to securitize Iran. Understanding the nature of relationships in the region, particularly between Riyadh and Tehran and between Riyadh and Washington, helps to understand the changing nature of regional politics and ultimately, the emergence of a more pro-active Saudi foreign policy. Words: 10409 1 I would like to thank Dr Sarah Hitchen for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. 1 Introduction In recent years, the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran has become increasingly influential in shaping the nature of Middle Eastern politics, with the two exerting influence across the region in an attempt to increase their power and to reduce that of the other. Following the execution of the Shi’a cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr on the 2nd January 2016, relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran became increasingly fractious, resulting in the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran and the severing of diplomatic ties between the two.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey: Background and U.S
    Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations Updated August 31, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41368 Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations Summary Turkey, a NATO ally since 1952, significantly affects a number of key U.S. national security issues in the Middle East and Europe. U.S.-Turkey relations have worsened throughout this decade over several matters, including Syria’s civil war, Turkey-Israel tensions, Turkey-Russia cooperation, and various Turkish domestic developments. The United States and NATO have military personnel and key equipment deployed to various sites in Turkey, including at Incirlik air base in the southern part of the country. Bilateral ties have reached historic lows in the summer of 2018. The major flashpoint has been a Turkish criminal case against American pastor Andrew Brunson. U.S. sanctions on Turkey related to the Brunson case and responses by Turkey and international markets appear to have seriously aggravated an already precipitous drop in the value of Turkey’s currency. Amid this backdrop, Congress has actively engaged on several issues involving Turkey, including the following: Turkey’s possible S-400 air defense system acquisition from Russia. Turkey’s efforts to acquire U.S.-origin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and its companies’ role in the international F-35 consortium’s supply chain. Complex U.S.-Turkey interactions in Syria involving several state and non- state actors, including Russia and Iran. Over strong Turkish objections, the United States continues to partner with Syrian Kurds linked with Kurdish militants in Turkey, and Turkey’s military has occupied large portions of northern Syria to minimize Kurdish control and leverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Won't You Be My Neighbor
    Won’t You Be My Neighbor: Syria, Iraq and the Changing Strategic Context in the Middle East S TEVEN SIMON Council on Foreign Relations March 2009 www.usip.org Date www.usip.org UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE – WORKING PAPER Won’t You Be My Neighbor UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-3011 © 2009 by the United States Institute of Peace. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policy positions. This is a working draft. Comments, questions, and permission to cite should be directed to the author ([email protected]) or [email protected]. This is a working draft. Comments, questions, and permission to cite should be directed to the author ([email protected]) or [email protected]. UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE – WORKING PAPER Won’t You Be My Neighbor About this Report Iraq's neighbors are playing a major role—both positive and negative—in the stabilization and reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq. In an effort to prevent conflict across Iraq's borders and in order to promote positive international and regional engagement, USIP has initiated high-level, non-official dialogue between foreign policy and national security figures from Iraq, its neighbors and the United States. The Institute’s "Iraq and its Neighbors" project has also convened a group of leading specialists on the geopolitics of the region to assess the interests and influence of the countries surrounding Iraq and to explain the impact of these transformed relationships on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief
    Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief Jim Zanotti Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Clayton Thomas Presidential Management Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs August 26, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44000 Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Turkey After the July 2016 Failed Coup ......................................................................................... 1 Coup Attempt and Aftermath .................................................................................................... 1 Implications for U.S./NATO Cooperation ................................................................................. 6 Post-Plot Tensions and Gulen’s Status ................................................................................ 6 Specific Issues for U.S. Policy ............................................................................................ 7 Strategic and Political Assessment .................................................................................... 10 Syria: Islamic State and Kurdish Groups ...................................................................................... 13 Figures Figure 1. Past Turkish Domestic Military Interventions ................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Map of U.S. and NATO Military Presence in Turkey ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Report
    Will HUTTON Sir Malcolm RIFKIND Con COUGHLIN Peter TATCHELL Does West know best? bright blue AUTUMN 2011 flickr.com/familymwr Contributors Matt Cavanagh is the Associate Director for UK Migration Policy at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) Con Coughlin is the Executive Foreign Editor of The Daily Telegraph Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP Brendan Cox is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Save the Children Stephen Crabb MP is MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire and Leader of Project Umubano, the Conservatives’ social action project in Rwanda and Sierra Leone Richard Dowden is Director of the Royal African Society and author of Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles Maurice Fraser is a Senior Fellow in European Politics at the London School of Economics (LSE) and an Associate Fellow at Chatham House Peter Tatchell Will Hutton is a columnist for The Observer , executive vice-chair of The Work Foundation and Principal of Hertford College, Oxford University Professor Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, the author of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth and was a Visiting Fellow at the Kennedy School, Harvard in 2008-9. Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP is MP for Kensington and was Foreign Secretary, 1995-7 Victoria Roberts is Deputy Chairman of the Tory Reform Group Will Hutton Henneke Sharif is an Associate at Counterpoint and a Board Member of Bright Blue Guy Stagg is the Online Lifestyle Editor for The Daily Telegraph Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner Garvan Walshe is the Publications Director
    [Show full text]
  • Soner Cagaptay August 19Th, 2020 INTRODUCTION Soner Cagaptay Is the Beyer Family Fellow and Director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute
    Erdoğan’s Dream & the Return of the Ottoman Empire | Soner Cagaptay August 19th, 2020 INTRODUCTION Soner Cagaptay is the Beyer Family fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute. He has written extensively on U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkish domestic politics, and Turkish nationalism. A historian by training, Cagaptay wrote his doctoral dissertation at Yale University (2003) on Turkish nationalism. Dr. Cagaptay has taught courses at Yale, Princeton University, Georgetown University, & Smith College on the Middle East, Mediterranean, & Eastern Europe. His latest book is Erdoğan's Empire: Turkey and the Politics of the Middle East. FROM THE BOOK Nations that were once great empires, such as Turkey, often have an inflated sense of their heyday. This, of course, leads to a readiness to be inspired, or a vulnerability to be manipulated, by effective politicians who are able to embody and speak to this narrative. Understanding the importance of Turkey’s imperial past is essential to understanding modern Turkey. This is because a romantic view of the collapsed Ottoman Empire continues to shape the views held by Turkish citizens of their place in the world. Enter Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the country’s president, who has held sway since 2003. Erdoğan, who has won thirteen nationwide polls, consolidating power in Turkey over decades, is the country’s most consequential and powerful leader, probably since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who, in 1923, established modern Turkey out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. The Romans measured time by saecula – the number of years that had to pass between the time of the occurrence of an incident and the death of all the people who were alive at the time of this 1 incident.
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of Refugees and Migrants in the European Mainstream Media: the Case of the United Kingdom and Germany by Büşra Güner
    The Representation of Refugees and Migrants in the European Mainstream Media: The Case of the United Kingdom and Germany By Büşra Güner Submitted to Central European University Department of International Relations In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations Supervisor: Professor Michael Merlingen Word Count: 17,241 CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2019 i Copyright Notice Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, may be made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. CEU eTD Collection i Abstract The surge of right-wing exclusionary populism and the failure of the Western states to respond to the so-called refugee crisis have been a fruitful discussion for students at the nexus of mobility, religion, and identity. Still, the recent into the representations of the refugees and migrants is rather limited to the analysis of anti-immigration discourse as well as single country or exploratory studies. This thesis scrutinizes the most commonly used frames about the refugees and migrants in the mainstream print media and offers a reading of the representations utilizing theories of Biopolitics, Necropolitics, and Orientalism. This research hypothesizes that not only these frames dehumanize, deindividualize, and decontextualize people, but also the reproduced knowledge about the others of Europe inform articulation of messages across the political spectrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey in the 21St Century: a Synopsis of Key Challenges and Threats
    ISSN (online) : 2547-8702 EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN POLICY NOTE April 2019, No. 37 TURKEY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A SYNOPSIS OF KEY CHALLENGES AND THREATS Constantinos M. Constantinou The following article tries to critically examine some of the major challenges and threats that Turkey presents to the rest of the world. The main analytical focus revolves around salient decisions made by NATO member Turkey (such as, the recent purchase of the S-400s from Russia) and what that entails for the Western world (say, the USA and its allies). Other aspects that are also of paramount importance when analyzing Erdogan’s Turkey include, inter alia, the power of language in the context of political communication. Thus, the aim here is to offer to the reader an overview of Turkey’s latest developments. The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who considers himself a leader of the Muslim world, is said to be trying to communicate that Turkey must be the country influencing the Middle East in lieu of the West.1 To elaborate further with the help of Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish research program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Erdogan is running on his image as Turkey’s strongman president; with the central theme of the election for his campaign based on the idea (via the use of the word beka or existence)2 that Turkey and the Muslim world are under threat – i.e., a narrative that fits well into the rhetoric regarding the recent terrorist attack in New Zealand targeting Turkey/Muslims and, how Turkey is going to come to their rescue.3 Research Fellow, Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is Losing Its Deterrence Capacity and How to Restore It
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 28 Issue 2 2007 Averting Catastrophe: Why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is Losing its Deterrence Capacity and How to Restore it Orde F. Kittrie Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Orde F. Kittrie, Averting Catastrophe: Why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is Losing its Deterrence Capacity and How to Restore it, 28 MICH. J. INT'L L. 337 (2007). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol28/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AVERTING CATASTROPHE: WHY THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY IS LOSING ITS DETERRENCE CAPACITY AND HOW TO RESTORE IT Orde F. Kittrie* IN TRODU CTIO N ...................................................................................... 338 I. N PT O VERVIEW ....................................................................... 346 II. THE NPT's VERIFICATION WEAKNESSES ................................. 350 III. INTRODUCTION TO SANCTIONS ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forty-Five Minutes That Changed the World: the September Dossier, British Drama, and the New Journalism George Potter Valparaiso University, [email protected]
    Valparaiso University ValpoScholar English Faculty Publications Department of English 2017 Forty-Five Minutes that Changed the World: The September Dossier, British Drama, and the New Journalism George Potter Valparaiso University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.valpo.edu/eng_fac_pub Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Potter, G. “Forty-Five Minutes that Changed the World: The eS ptember Dossier, British Drama, and the New Journalism.” College Literature 44.2 (2017): 231-55. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Forty-five Minutes that Changed the World: The September Dossier, British Drama, and the New Journalism George Potter College Literature, Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2017, pp. 231-255 (Article) Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2017.0011 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/656975 Access provided by Valparaiso University (9 Jun 2017 20:59 GMT) FORTY-FIVE MINUTES THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: THE SEPTEMBER DOSSIER, BRITISH DRAMA, AND THE NEW JOURNALISM GEORGE POTTER September 24, 2002. Just over a year after the attacks of 9/11 and just under two weeks after US President George W. Bush implored the United Nations to take a stand against Iraq, the British Labor government released a dossier analyzing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
    [Show full text]