This book aims to reinterpret, from a Foreign Policy Analysis perspective, the relationship between British public opinion and the Blair government's decision-making in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It highlights the simple but powerful point that the government won the parliamentary vote and got its war, but never won the argument that it was the right thing to do. That mattered in the longer term, in the face of missing WMD, rising casualties and chaos on the ground. Understanding how, why and with what consequences Britain wound up in this position means understanding better both this specific case and the wider issue of how democratic publics influence foreign policy processes.
The book does two main things in pursuit of this goal. Firstly, it proposes an innovative constructivist approach to understanding how public actors potentially influence foreign policy. It frames the debate about Iraq as a contest over legitimacy among active public actors, breaking the debate down into four constituent elements covering the necessity, legality and morality of war, and the government's authority. Secondly, it presents a detailed empirical account of the British public debate before the invasion of Iraq based on the rigorous interrogation of thousands of primary sources. It employs both quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods to interpret the shape of debate between January 2002 and March 2003.
Alongside these specific objectives, the book looks to contribute to the wider FPA literature in three ways. Firstly, the book investigates the domestic politics of foreign policy decision-making, and particularly the influence public opinion exerts; secondly, it considers the domestic structural determinants of foreign policy decision-making, highlighting the intervening role played by constitutional rules that insulate governments from public criticism, in the British context the Prime Minister's formal power to direct the armed forces in the name of the monarch. Finally, the book studies the ethics of foreign policy decision-making, and specifically the legitimate use of force.
Bridging two "camps" in the field of international public opinion - nation branding and public diplomacy - this book presents a first-of-its-kind cohesive framework with which readers can better research, teach, practice, and understand the field. At its core is the introduction of the Model of Country Concept, which illustrates the array of factors, including hard- and soft-power initiatives, that shape how global citizens form their opinions about other countries. Each chapter applies the Model of Country Concept across a wide geographic, methodological, and disciplinary range of qualitative and quantitative research studies. They include traditional and social media content, international educational exchange programs, tourism, government-sponsored programs, and entertainment. By way of definitions, prior research findings, professional best practices, and published theories and models, the book offers a framework for future positioning of both practice around and research about nation branding and public diplomacy. Written for practitioners, researchers, teachers, and students of public diplomacy, international relations, media/journalism, and strategic communication, among others, the book offers a comprehensive yet approachable solution for framing a conversation about the heterodox nature of nation branding and public diplomacy, and advances the field through original research.
Murder on the Opinion Page is a mystery thriller about people who disappear after they write a letter to the editor. Veteran police detective, Dan Kawowski and forensics intern Jane Dockery, suspect a serial killer is on the loose. Why would someone be kidnapped and murdered for writing a letter to the editor? Kawowski and Dockery search for the killer, and stumble upon a plot no one would ever dream could happen. This couldn't happen in America, could it?