Suchergebnisse

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.