How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

This page intentionally left blank

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Sally-Ann Totman Foreword by

Gary Scudder

HOW HOLLYWOOD PROJECTS FOREIGN POLICY

Copyright © Sally-Ann Totman, 2009. All rights reserved. First published in 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–0–230–61869–5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Totman, Sally-Ann. How Hollywood projects foreign policy / by Sally-Ann Totman ; foreword by Gary Scudder. p. cm. ISBN 978–0–230–61869–5 (alk. paper) 1. International relations in motion pictures. 2. Motion pictures and history. 3. Motion pictures—United States—History. I. Title. PN1995.9.I57T67 2009 791.43'635873—dc22

2009009907

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: November 2009 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

For my two wonderful children: Julia and Paul

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

List of Figures

ix

Foreword

xi

1 Introduction The Carter Administration The Reagan Administration The Bush (41) Administration The Clinton Administration The Bush (43) Administration 2

1 18 21 25 28 29

The End of the Cold War: Rogue States and Their Characteristics

33

3

The Islamic Republic of Iran

51

4

The Republic of Cuba

71

5 The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

89

6 The Republic of Iraq

105

7

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

119

8

The Republic of Sudan

135

9 The Syrian Arab Republic

143

10

Conclusion

153

Appendix I: Transcripts of President Clinton’s Two Speeches Following the U.S. Air Strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan

171

Appendix II: Lists of films that have and have not received Pentagon assistance

175

viii

●

Contents

Notes

177

Bibliography

199

Filmography

211

Index

217

Figures

2.1 Countries that pose the greatest threat to the US according to Americans in 1994

43

2.2 Perception of foreign countries

50

4.1 American opinion of Cuba

72

4.2 American support for reestablishing relations with Cuba

80

5.1

American perception of Libya

103

6.1 American opinion of Iraq

113

6.2 American support of the US War in Iraq

113

10.1

America’s greatest threat trends

10.2 America’s greatest threats in 2006

163 163

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword

S

eemingly since the evil Czarist troops drove the peasants down the Odessa stairs in Sergei Eisenstein’s seminal Soviet classic Battleship Potemkin, film has played a key role in how modern states practice their statecraft. Lenin may have been the first leader to understand the power of film to manipulate the masses, but he would certainly not be the last. Certainly Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels undoubtedly grasped the power of the medium when they gave aspiring director Leni Riefenstahl an unlimited budget to film the 1934 Nazi rally at Nuremburg. While there have been countless arguments over the decades about the validity of defining Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will as a documentary, few would disagree with the power of her film to project the image of a rebuilding, powerful, and unified German state. In the dark early days of World War II the Roosevelt administration turned to Frank Capra, the award-winning director of such classics as It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, to help provide the members of the American armed services with a sense of mission. Capra, in his seven film series Why We Fight, laid out the essential struggle between free and slave worlds, and in doing so gave the young soldiers, sailors and marines a greater sense of moral purpose greater than simply revenge for Pearl Harbor. Film, like every other medium, has its limitations. However, its power to evoke emotional response is arguably unmatched. This emotive appeal is invaluable in propaganda, and thus a common feature of films that help define a country’s national purpose. Often, this emotional appeal focuses on the positive attributes of a country’s allies. The films of the World War II era provide many examples. Think of the portrayal of the quirky but unf lappable Englishman George Ffolliott played by George Sanders in Foreign Correspondent or the heroic and long-suffering Russian Kolya played by Dana Andrews in The North Star or even the “good” German Carl played by S.Z. Sakall in Casablanca. However, and probably more often, the film lenses is focused on the evil attributes

xii

●

Foreword

of the country’s enemies. The portrayal of the greedy, parasitic Jew from Der Ewige Jude is an obvious example, but the Germans were hardly alone in using film to paint a lurid image of the enemy. Imagine the response of an American audience to Conrad Veidt’s performance as the cold, almost machine-like, German officer Major Strasser in Casablanca or the portrayal of the Japanese in films such as Bataan or Cry Havoc. For the propagandistic message to be successful the enemy has to be portrayed as the “other,” residents of an antipodal world as different from the audience’s as night is from day. The message is a simple one: our side is good and the other side is evil. The model is a painfully simplistic one, but arguably one that is necessary. In a modern age of total warfare, when a country’s citizens were asked to make greater and greater sacrifices on both the military and home fronts, it became increasingly necessary to convince the citizens of the needs for these sacrifices. The situation is even more complicated in democratic societies, where a difficult balancing act is always at work. On the one hand, the potential power of popular support is extraordinary. If the citizens of a free society “own” a cause, their potential for sacrifice is seemingly endless. On the other hand, the presence of an electorate means that the cause often has to be sold to them and their patience for that cause can be short-lived. If, however, that cause relates to a struggle between ultimate good and evil, it is more likely that they will maintain their enthusiasm. Of course, politics, including wars, seldom provide the stunning contrast between good and evil that led Studs Terkel to call his work on World War II The Good War. In the decades after the end of World War II the political world was more complicated, but at least it broke down into a bipolar model. Statecraft in the post–Cold War devolved into a maddeningly diverse palette of slightly varied shades of gray, not the stunningly simplistic contrast between purest white and deepest black. The end of the Cold War, however, didn’t mean that countries, and especially the United States of America, stopped presenting foreign policy in this light. Just as the Soviet Union replaced the Germans and Japanese, the “Rogue states” have now replaced the Russians as the “other.” These “Rogue states,” identified by Dr. Totman in this book such as Iran, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria, are now presented as standing in stark contrast to American values. Logic would dictate that these seven states put together are really much less of a threat to the hegemony of the United States than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union by themselves. If this is true, then why are these states held up as a real threat to the very existence of the United States? Does

Foreword

●

xiii

the United States, or any other powerful empire, need the “other” to justify its own worldview? Why have Iranians, Cubans, Libyans, Iraqis, North Koreans, Sudanese, and Syrians begun to appear in movies as the “bad guys,” taking over the evil roles formerly reserved for Nazis or Communists? For that matter, has Hollywood essentially become an agent for American foreign policy? Dr. Totman addresses these questions in this important work. Through an interdisciplinary exploration of American foreign policy and film, she examines the use of popular culture as an effective “soft power.” Totman analyzes films as varied as Syriana, Die Another Day, True Lies, and Hot Shots to construct a fascinating portrait of film as an extension of foreign policy. More importantly, however, she gets at the bigger question of why the world’s only superpower needs to identify and in many ways manufacture the threat posed by Iran, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. This exploration of the American attempt to refashion the “other” as the “Rogue states,” especially when magnified by the use of film, is what makes Sally Totman’s work so crucial. The questions that Dr. Totman explores are important ones, both for today and for the coming decades as well. The problem, of course, is how does one put the genie back in the bottle? Once you have identified the enemy as evil incarnate, it is very difficult to return to politics as usual and sign treaties based on clearing up geographic boundaries or settling trade disputes, let alone sitting down to discuss something as delicate as nuclear power. Fortunately, while historians are free to point out these moral quandaries, we are not tasked with solving them. Professor Gary Evans Scudder, Jr. PhD Champlain College Burlington, VT

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

S

ince the dawn of civilization, people have been suspicious of outsiders, and feared and vilified them. Empires, countries, and individuals all define themselves by their enemy. The Ancient Greeks saw themselves in opposition to the Persians; the Romans loathed the barbarians from the north, and the British saw themselves as vastly superior to their subjects. The recent past is no exception. Enemies during the last century have included the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians, the Russians, and the Communists in general. The most recent enemies, however, have been the countries branded as being “Rogue States” and their inhabitants. Iran. Cuba. Libya. Iraq. North Korea. Sudan. Syria. Just mentioning their names conjures up images of nuclear ambitions, terrorism, human rights abuses, and generalized evil doing in the minds of many Westerners. These are the enemies of today. How can we be certain? Because the U.S. government and Hollywood say it is so. Throughout the twentieth century, film has been a bellwether when it comes to defining who America’s current enemies are. World War II films portrayed the Germans and Japanese as the enemy whilst films from the Cold War period inevitably had the Russians as the villain. Today, it is not just ill-defined “terrorists” but also Rogue States that have now taken over from communist ideology and the USSR as the enemy of the United States. This is ref lected not just in U.S. foreign policy but also in Hollywood films. Furthermore, countries that are allies or friends of the United States tend to be portrayed as such and countries that are enemies of, or in disfavor with, the United States are also portrayed accordingly. Further to this “friends and enemies” portrayal, countries that are changing status from being friends to enemies see their Hollywood portrayal reflecting these developments. In other

2

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

words, countries that are emerging on the U.S. radar as “Rogue States” see a dramatic increase in their portrayal as “baddies,” and countries whose “rogueness” is in decline or being overshadowed by the emergence of a new Rogue see a corresponding softening in their portrayal as “baddies.” This phenomenon is not confined to film. In 1971, sociologists Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart’s book entitled How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic examined how Disney maligned the enemies of the United States in Latin America through the exploitation of popular culture and in particular the comic book genre. The book posited that Disney was attempting to spread the capitalist message to people living under communist governments through comics, and the book details and gives examples of the ways in which Disney had directly advocated the overthrow of communist governments and, in particular, the government of Augusto Pinochet. Through the use of stereotyping and reinforcement and the creation of an alternate universe in the comic books, the anticommunist, procapitalist message of Disney flourished. The locations of the comics are stereotypes such as Aztecland, which is a stereotyped Mexico, and Unsteadystan, which is an extremely biased representation of Vietnam. The populace of the comic world are divided into three stereotypical categories: the inherently good Duckburgers (Americans), the evil swindlers (the corrupt communist governments) that try to part the Duckburgers from their rightful gains, and the childlike “noble savages” (the general populace) that stand by on the sidelines. It is through the use of the “soft power” of popular culture that Disney, and thus also the United States, was able to stimulate revolution against the communist governments. It is this use of popular culture as a form of “soft power” that this book is concerned with. “Soft power” is an important adjunct in the promotion of American inf luence abroad. The ability to get others to want what you want by projecting the attractions of the American way of life can be a better option than the exercise of the hard power of military or political coercion.1 Hollywood has a significant role to play in sustaining American authority abroad, and its power and inf luence may be used for good or ill. Cultural critics, although expressing concern over Hollywood’s depiction of the United States, nevertheless continue to see it as an important adjunct to furthering U.S. global ambitions.2 De Zoysa and Newman argue that the true relevance of the alliance between Hollywood and the U.S. military is based on the consolidation of American power in the world economy. Their study proposed that

Introduction

●

3

the relationship between Hollywood and Silicon Valley in developing new technologies has blurred the lines between public and private, politics and economics, and work and leisure.3 It has also been suggested that political leaders from the “Coalition of the Willing” were able to call upon a reserve of filmic cultural reference points in their representations of unfolding events during the invasion of Iraq. In this context, the way in which Hollywood narrates contemporary geopolitical space was examined. This postmodern interpretation of how audiences make sense and meaning of the films they watch and the conf licts represented therein were also explored.4 The distribution of films is an important factor when films are viewed in the context of being a soft power device. There are two main types of firms that secure production and distribution activities in Hollywood: the majors and the independents. Export markets for Hollywood films have expanded greatly in recent years, particularly for the majors, and partly as a result of strategic trade initiatives that have been underwritten by the U.S. government.5 One particular study by Mueller examined Public Opinion in the United States and came up with ten “propositions” about American Public Opinion: 1. The American public does not pay much attention to foreign affairs most of the time but seems ready to care if there is a reason to do so. 2. The public undertakes a sensible cost–benefit accounting when evaluating foreign affairs. 3. The public’s attitude of foreign affairs are set by the objective content of the issue and by the position of major policy makers. 4. The “CNN Effect” is vastly exaggerated. 5. Foreign policy has become less important in judging the performance of the President. 6. The advantage to a President of a success in a minor foreign policy venture is marginal. 7. If they are not being killed, American troops can remain in peacekeeping ventures virtually indefinitely with little public criticism. 8. A venture deemed of small importance is best sold as international social work that can be shrugged off if it goes wrong. 9. A danger in peacekeeping mission[s] is that Americans might be taken hostage. 10. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Rogue States and international terrorism remain potentially attention arresting concerns. 6

4

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Following on from this, several other recent studies have examined particular films and their relationship to politics. Lisle and Pepper looked at Ridley Scott’s 2001 blockbuster film Black Hawk Down, which was examined with the claim in mind that popular film is the “newest” component of sovereignty. The subject of the film is the 1993 U.N./U.S. intervention in Somalia. This lends itself to straightforward politicization. The film’s production history and its reception by global audiences were also analyzed. It was found that initial reactions to the film focused on its ideological commitments such as racism, collusion between Hollywood and the Pentagon, post–September 11 patriotism, and the idea of “America” against “the world.” The study argued that Black Hawk Down is not about sovereignty as traditionally conceived, which is about national interest shaping global affairs but rather, Black Hawk Down articulates a new and emerging global order that operates through inclusion, management, and f lexibility.7 A study by Carruthers suggested that the Hollywood films Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers (2002) were ref lective of the popular mood in the United States that accompanied Operation “Enduring Freedom” and the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This mood was described in part as a militaristic one but also as a rather belated response by Hollywood to invest moral purpose in the U.S. military following an earlier spate of hostile Vietnam War films. It was concluded that both films contribute to a pattern shift by Hollywood from its earlier Vietnam War “syndrome.” This was suggested to have wider cultural and political repercussions.8 Many have argued that popular culture does have a significant effect on “real life” political decision making. This influence was unforgettably depicted by the 1997 movie, Wag the Dog, and is based on specific skills that the entertainment industry applies in creating gripping plots and pioneering special effects. A study by Pethes examined how these skills can increasingly be considered skills of political planning. The study explored how the U.S. Army collaborated with Hollywood scriptwriters and computer game producers at the Institute for Creative Technology at the University of Southern California, to create virtual training situations that prepare soldiers for new combat situations.9 Another film that has been examined in several studies is Steven Spielberg’s film Minority Report (2002), which has been seen in terms of understanding the implications of Bush Doctrine and the War on Terror. The film explores the tradeoffs between security and freedom and free will and external determinism by following the fate of John Anderton,

Introduction

●

5

an anticrime crusader in the U.S. Government’s Department of Pre-Crime, which prevents violent crimes before they occur. The similarities to the post–Patriot Department of Justice are striking.10 Even before the events of September 11, 2001, the film Independence Day (1996) was used in an introductory International Relations course to explore the concept of world order in a unipolar world, the significance of the Fourth of July holiday as the world’s “Independence Day,” and the notions of realism, idealism, and the nation-state.11 An extensive study by Shaheen, based on the viewing of more than 900 films, examined more than a century of Hollywood’s projection of the (negative) images of Arabs and Muslims. The results of the examination illustrated how moviegoers are led to believe that all Arabs are Muslims and vice versa. According to Shaheen, Hollywood films have tended to portray Arabs as heartless, brutal, uncivilized religious fanatics, through the common depictions of Arabs kidnapping or raping a fair maiden, expressing hatred against the Jews and Christians, and demonstrating a love for wealth and power. The study compared the stereotype of the hook-nosed Arab with a similar depiction of Jews in Nazi propaganda materials. The survey also found that only 5 percent of Arab film roles depict normal, human characters.12 Unlike Shaheen, other scholars argue that Muslims and Arabs are not treated unfairly or stereotyped in Hollywood film. It is argued that action movies deal in stereotypes rather than psychological realism and that the depiction of Islamist terrorists does have a basis in reality recognizable to audiences. It is also suggested that the film industry is in the business of entertainment, not enlightenment.13 In a study by King of the history of cinema and ethnic representation in U.S. films throughout the twentieth century, it was found that historical simplification and stereotypes have been perpetuated through contemporary American movies, primarily to enhance commercial success. It was found that early U.S. films presented diverse subjects to appeal to a broad audience and during World War II, filmmaking developed to portray a more unified nation. It was also found that the subsequent Cold War subject matter appealed to international audiences whilst the post– Cold War films concerning U.S. military history are generally criticized for inaccurate representation of events and ethnic diversity. Historicnarrative films were found to both reflect and shape popular views and national identity. King found that Hollywood corporations have a potent influence on both international and U.S. opinion-shaping.14 During the 1940s, as part of its investigation of “Communist Infiltration into the Motion Picture Industry,” the Federal Bureau of

6

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Investigation (FBI) borrowed criteria for determining if a motion picture contained communist propaganda from the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPAPAI), a private, anticommunist organization located in Hollywood.15 One study analyzed the production of films, within the studio system, depicting the glories of U.S. military action within theatres from around the world, from the Revolutionary War period until 2002. A large majority of films were deemed to be from the perspective of “good wars” that the film industry has strongly favoured, especially during the 1990s. The study found an increasing emphasis on the World War II experience as the quintessential “good war” that brings American audiences back to the benevolence of the U.S. military through its various patriotic and heroic exploits.16 It needs to be noted that many Hollywood films that depict historical wars have a fallacious inf luence on the public’s understanding of history. For example, the film U-571 (2000), which is “based on real events,” has some very serious factual errors and distortions of reality but many moviegoers will consider it to be the “real story” rather than a work of fiction. The film is about an American crew who are on a topsecret mission to capture an Enigma cipher machine from the German U-boat. However, in reality, it is the British, not Americans, who captured an Enigma cipher machine, from U-110, on which the film is based. Furthermore, the documents and Enigma machine seized from the U-110 did not help the British code-breakers to break the main naval Enigma code for the first time as the film depicts. That was achieved as a result of the capture of Enigma codebooks from a number of German trawlers. Even the capture of the Enigma machine itself was no help as other Enigma cipher machines had already been captured by the British. The real importance of the capture of U-110 was the attainment of the settings and procedure to be used for “Offizier” Enigma messages, which were the very important doubly enciphered messages sent to officers in U-boats while they were at sea. It was these crucial messages that might never have been read by the British had it not been for the capture of the U-110. It is a classic example of Hollywood rewriting history with different heroes. This is not a new phenomenon. The film Sahara (1943) which was directed by Zoltan Korda and nominated for three Academy Awards is another example of this tendency to “rewrite history” by Hollywood. Filmed during World War II, Sahara was intended to be a “propaganda piece” for the U.S. government, and it is a particularly insightful film in relation to U.S. policy at the time it was made. The plot sees

Introduction

●

7

Humphrey Bogart, as Sergeant Joe Gunn, leading a ramshackle tank unit after the fall of Tobruk in North Africa. The tank picks up five British soldiers, a French soldier, a South African soldier, and a Sudanese soldier (with an Italian prisoner) amongst others along the way. The new unit works together to defeat a much larger German force in a fight over an all-important water source. The film portrays all of the images that the United States deemed important for the American people to see in regards to the war, such as bravery, unswerving patriotism, and heroism. At the time Sahara was made, the British and the Americans were being besieged in North Africa, and nobody knew how the war would turn out. The nationality mix of the heroes in the film is no coincidence and very revealing especially as there were no Americans at Tobruk! Politically based films, such as Wag the Dog (1997) and Primary Colors (1998), are also portrayed as being based on real life, and for good reason. Wag the Dog centers on an underage sex scandal between the U.S. President and a girl scout, which occurred in the Oval Office. The story “breaks” two weeks before the presidential reelection is due to take place, and so the White House hires a “spin doctor” to manage the fallout. The spin doctor then employs a Hollywood producer to produce a war in Albania in order to take the American public’s focus away from the sex scandal. What is remarkable about this film is that very soon after its release, the sex scandal between President Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky broke. Then, on August 20, 1998, Clinton ordered the bombing of “terrorist related facilities” in Sudan and Afghanistan, less than three days after he had to give his testimony in front of the Grand Jury over the affair and the same day that Monica Lewinsky testified before the Grand Jury for the second time. This scenario struck a chord with the American public, as there was suddenly a huge demand for the video of Wag the Dog. The impact of Hollywood is not just restricted to American audiences. One study examined the relationship between Hollywood and antiAmericanism from “global consumers” who have never visited the United States and have no way to balance negative impressions generated by pop cultural visions of violence, dysfunctional families, sexual promiscuity, and antisocial behavior. On one hand it is suggested that Hollywood inspires resentment and hatred of the United States while the other side heralds the triumph of American values as evidenced by the popularity of icons like Mickey Mouse and Brad Pitt.17 It has been suggested that Hollywood’s ideology is that of “utopianism tempered by greed” and that

8

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

although many films present liberal, anti-American ideologies, it is only done to the extent that a film will still make money.18 Several universities have courses in politics and international affairs that use popular films as primary texts to facilitate active learning about foreign policy.19 For example Dr. Strangelove (1964) is used at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana to teach students about the threat of nuclear war and its implications. The film is used as an “instructional guide” to cover topics such as deterrence, mutually assured destruction, preemption, the security dilemma, the arms race, zero-sum games, Cold War paranoia, and civil–military relations. 20 It is also acknowledged that the Pentagon is using the Battle for Algiers (1965) in the same manner. Hollywood is also the home of the American television industry, and there are a number of recent television series that focus on the White House and U.S. foreign policy such as The West Wing and Commanderin-Chief. This book will not examine these as the target audience for these programs is narrower than for films, and although they are at least as significant as cinema in molding public opinion, the book will refer to television productions only in passing. Obviously, there is a rich heritage of important and inf luential films about countries that the United States has deemed to be Rogue States from studios in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world; however, this book will not be examining them. The reason for focusing on Hollywood films is that it is the main source of films viewed by the American public and are the only ones to encapsulate the U.S. foreign policy perspective. The epic Lawrence of Arabia (1962), winner of seven Academy Awards including Best Picture in 1963, is a film from the United Kingdom about a British military figure and his exploits in the Middle East, which is the region that is home to five of the seven Rogue States. Although this classic film is arguably one of the most inf luential films about the Middle East ever made, it has little relevance to current or past U.S. foreign policy regarding Rogue States or U.S. popular culture today, and thus it is not discussed. Similarly, there are many other genres within popular culture such as music, art, and poetry, which this book will not examine. The reason that film has been chosen as the genre to be examined rather than other forms of popular culture is that it tends to reach a wider, more diverse audience than, for example, opera does. The celebrated opera by Mozart, The Abduction from the Seraglio, whilst set in Turkey and full of rich

Introduction

●

9

accounts of the Middle East region is not something that the majority of the U.S. population would be familiar with and thus is of little use due to its age and lack of ability to influence current U.S. opinions of the Middle East, a genre that is not appropriate for examination by this book. It should be acknowledged that whilst most operas fall into the same category as Abduction from the Seraglio, there are notable exceptions such as the Death of Klinghoffer, the 1991 opera by John Adams that is based on the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, by PLO Terrorists. During the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, which had more than 400 passengers plus crew on board, Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old disabled American Jew, was killed by the terrorists and his body (still in its wheelchair) thrown overboard. Klinghoffer’s story was made into a Hollywood TV movie entitled Voyage of Terror: The Achille Lauro Affair (1990) and then into the opera The Death of Klinghoffer. Interestingly, the Italian government was toppled over its handling of the hijacking crisis, but it had little effect on U.S. foreign policy. Although this is a more modern opera, it still does not reach anything like the same numbers of people as Hollywood film. It should be acknowledged that popular music does reach a wide audience, perhaps as extensive an audience as film. A number of songs refer to politics and the policies of the United States. However, the songs that do this are limited, and although often popular, the words and meanings are not fully understood or clear as the meanings transmitted through film. Simply Red’s hit Money’s Too Tight to Mention (1985) makes reference to “Reaganomics” and its detrimental effect on the domestic economy. However, the song is not meant to influence people’s beliefs but rather be a commentary on society. This also applies to Billy Joel’s hit song We Didn’t Start the Fire (1989), which is a chronological commentary on society since 1953 and includes a significant number of references to U.S. foreign policies and incidents of the past. For these reasons, songs are not appropriate to be examined in this book. The use of films in political analysis can be a two-edged sword, and several recent academic studies that employ this methodology can be criticized for only including films that support the hypothesis of the author and excluding films that run counter to it. Examples of this tendency can be found in accounts such as Corkin’s Cowboys as Cold Warriors: The Western and US History 21 and Green’s Cracks in the Pedestal: Ideology and Gender in Hollywood. 22 In the following pages, the objective was to be as value neutral as possible when choosing which

10

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

films to highlight as being typical of the genre and period. To this end, the criteria for choosing films was as follows: • The films must be made by Hollywood. This means that the film must be associated with one of the studios based in Los Angeles, California. • The films must refer to the country in question, even if only in passing, by name. • The films should contain a “political message” of some kind. In relation to the definition of a “political message,” it is perhaps appropriate to refer to Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography in film: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.23

Having acknowledged this, films that portray the President of the United States, the Departments of State or Defense, or the U.S. military in action must be seen as representing the policy stance of the United States. Other films that do not seem to be as closely tied to the U.S. bureaucracy can, and do, portray the foreign policy of the United States. In these films, the depiction of U.S. policy is not as overt, but rather fleeting mentions of U.S. policy toward these countries, or reference to historical associations and events, manage to link these countries to either the “goodies” or the “baddies” of world politics. Edward Said’s seminal study Orientalism 24 first elaborated the concept of “the other.” The premise of Said’s theory is that people define who they are by first looking at who others are and then by focusing on the differences between the two. According to this theory, the West or Occident perceives itself to be the opposite of the East or Orient, which he feels is seen to be uncivilized, unsafe, one-dimensional, and full of mad Arab terrorists and all the other stereotypes constantly portrayed in Western movies. In opposition to this anarchic world, the West is seen as civilized, safe, and three-dimensional. Similarly, by and large, Western leaders are seen as doers of good, and defenders and protectors against the barbaric and anarchic “other.” The concept of the “other” is important because people define what they are by first knowing what they are not. This is a technique often used in film to get the audience on the side of the hero. The hero is

Introduction

●

11

often seen as having qualities that the audience can relate to or aspire to possess. Rarely is the villain seen as having qualities that the audience can relate to, but more often they are seen as a type of “other.” Said was one of the first to popularize these ideas, and since 1979 other scholars have built upon his theories. Said’s work has been attacked by the influential Princeton historian and current Middle East policy advisor to President Bush, Bernard Lewis, whose “The question of Orientalism” 25 and “Orientalism: an exchange” 26 f leshed out his attack. Said argued that the modern study of Islam in the West had evolved as a tool of imperialist domination, and that the West’s pursuit of knowledge had conspired with its pursuit of power, thus making Orientalism effectively a form of racism that had misrepresented Islam. Lewis, however, maintained that the development of Orientalism was a feature of Europe’s humanism, which arose independently of, and occasionally in opposition to, imperial interests. Lewis rejected the notion that only Muslims, Arabs, or their political sympathizers could write the region’s history, which Lewis termed “intellectual protectionism.” The Said– Lewis exchange prompted a thought-provoking debate about the representation of Islam and the Arabs in Western academia and exposed ethnic and political differences among historians. In the years since Orientalism was first published, a vast corpus of material has been built on Said’s original foundations culminating in a body of theory, which is loosely termed postcolonialism. This can be seen as a subgroup of the postmodern revolution, which has in turn been attacked by many, including the Australian iconoclast Keith Windschuttle in The Killing of History (1996). Whilst the main focus of Windschuttle’s work is concerned with the increasing dominance of dilettantish theories from the French Salon and their deleterious effects on the disciplines of history and politics and the publishing of these theories by an increasingly uncritical and cowed academic press, he is also concerned about issues of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism holds that understanding depends on the cultural context of the speaker and all its subtle variants and asserts that every culture has positive worth and can be judged only on its own terms rather than against a universal human standard. Windschuttle holds that this is an equally dangerous trend. A politicized interpretation of Said’s philosophical position is provided by the American activist and “public intellectual” Noam Chomsky, whose Necessary Illusions (1989) outlines how political elites make use of propaganda to distract the public and distort their perceptions from the real issues. Chomsky raises the issue of the media, arguing that it is no more

12

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

than a propaganda tool of the government, which assists in maintaining the status quo through perpetuating ideas of confusion and fear. According to Chomsky, this prevents democracy from becoming “real” and effective. Necessary Illusions builds on Chomsky’s earlier book with Edward S. Herman entitled Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) in which the authors propose a “propaganda model” of the news media. This model suggests that democratic societies, such as the United States, tend to use nonviolent methods, or “soft power,” as a way of controlling their populations as opposed to totalitarian regimes that use physical methods. Chomsky and Herman illustrate the way money can drive the agenda of the media and as a result distort the provision of information to the public. Chomsky later suggests that the Cold War policies of the United States were not entirely based on anti-Sovietism but rather they were adopted as a method of preserving the ideological and economic dominance of the United States. Philip Knightley is the respected author of The First Casualty (2004) whose title comes from the phrase by Senator Hiram Johnson during World War I that “The first casualty when war comes is truth.” First printed in 1975 (and now in its third edition), this book suggests that from the Crimean War onward, war correspondents and other journalists have “omitted or twisted” their reportage because far too many of them believed that critical reporting or exposure of governmental lies would render them unpatriotic or worse. For example, Knightley contends that during the Gulf War, lies were accepted as facts, such as the very popular tale produced by a public relations firm that Saddam Hussein’s troops were killing babies in incubators. He argues that before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was difficult to find mainstream correspondents in the media who were critical of the myth of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction or of his alleged ties to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on the United States because of this phenomenon of patriotism before truth. Bad News From Israel (2004) examines the content of news programs in the West regarding Israel and the Israel/Palestine conf lict. It focuses on terminology, bias, and depth of coverage amongst other factors. The authors, Philo and Berry, conducted audience studies to see what perceptions the audience had regarding the conf lict, whether these perceptions had been inf luenced by the news media, and what other sources the general public may rely on for information regarding the conf lict. The authors found that viewer interest in news related directly to their understanding of what they were watching. Viewers also identified with people they perceived to be like themselves in some way such as being democratic and/or western.

Introduction

●

13

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the revelations about misuses of intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, there has been a plethora of film-length documentaries about the corruption and bias of the media in relation to the portrayal of the Middle East and current U.S. foreign policy initiatives. Films such as Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 discuss the medias’ complicity in the portrayal of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and U.S. justifications for the invasion. This collaboration is not a new phenomenon as the Pentagon and Hollywood have both benefited from their long “relationship” of mutual cooperation. The book by journalist David L. Robb, Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors Movies (2004), notes that Americans love war movies because they tend to consist of “heroes and villains” where the “good guy” always wins after much conflict, drama, action, and violence. Another point that this study makes is that most Americans have never had first-hand experience of war and thus form their ideas about war from watching movies that are about past, present, and future wars. Often, these films give the audience the impression that it is historically factual when in fact it is only loosely based on the event, such as the 2001 film Pearl Harbor. Robb’s study also investigates the symbiotic relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon including the establishment of the Film Liaison Office at the Pentagon. This relationship is of mutual benefit to both parties as the Pentagon receives positive advertising for the armed services whilst Hollywood producers receive help, which gives them the ability to make bigger and better movies. An example of this cooperation is the film Top Gun (1986) where the U.S. Air Force allowed producers to use their jets and military facilities in return for showing the U.S. Air Force and Navy to be outstanding and superior to those of other countries. Robb posits that very few moviegoers realize how much control and inf luence the Pentagon has over the American film industry. Robb cites letters and internal memos and conducts interviews with producers, writers, and directors to substantiate the close relationship that Washington has with Hollywood. 27 *

*

*

Socialization is the process by which people learn to adopt the behavior patterns of the community in which they live. This typically occurs during childhood when the individual develops the skills and knowledge

14

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

necessary to be able to function within his or her environment. Primary socialization is the initial upbringing of a dependent infant and its initiation into its native language. Secondary socialization involves the training for more specialized roles in society through education and increased social grouping, which build on primary socialization. Albert Bandura, a respected and distinguished Canadian psychologist, was the pioneer of Social Learning Theory. 28 Bandura hypothesized that Social Learning occurs when an observer’s behavior changes after viewing the behavior of a model. Bandura held that behavior could be affected by the vicarious reinforcement (positive consequences) or vicarious punishment (negative consequences) of a model’s behavior. 29 According to Bandura, learning by observation involves four separate processes. These are attention, retention, production, and motivation. The first process is attention, which refers to the fact that observers cannot learn unless they pay attention to what is happening around them. This process is inf luenced by characteristics of the model, such as how much one likes or identifies with the model, and by characteristics of the observer, such as the observer’s expectations or level of emotional arousal. The second process is retention, which refers to the fact that observers must not only recognize the observed behavior but also be able to recall it at some later time. The third process is that of production in that observers must be physically and/or intellectually capable of producing the act. In many cases, the observer possesses the necessary responses but in other instances reproducing the model’s actions may involve skills the observer has not yet acquired. It is one thing to carefully watch a leading man shoot down a helicopter with a rocket, but it is quite another to go home from the theatre and repeat the act. The fourth and final process is that of motivation. Observers will perform the act only if they have some motivation or reason for doing so. The presence of reinforcement or punishment, either to the model or directly to the observer, becomes especially important in this process. Human development reflects a complex interaction of the individual, the individual’s behavior, and the environment. The relationship between these elements is called reciprocal determinism. An individual’s cognitive abilities, physical characteristics, personality, beliefs, and attitudes influence both his or her behavior and environment. These influences are reciprocal in that an individual’s behavior can affect his feelings about himself and his attitudes and beliefs about others. A great deal of what an individual knows comes from environmental resources such as film. According to Bandura, there are several key principles30 behind Social Learning Theory. The first is that the observer will imitate the

Introduction

●

15

model’s behavior if the model possesses characteristics such as talent, intelligence, power, or good looks, which the observer finds attractive or desirable. Secondly, the observer will react to the way the model is treated and mimic the model’s behavior. Thus, when the model’s behavior is rewarded, the observer is more likely to reproduce the rewarded behavior. When the model is punished, an example of vicarious punishment, the observer is less likely to reproduce the same behavior. A clear distinction exists between an observer’s “acquiring” a behavior and “performing” a behavior. Through observation, the observer can acquire the behavior without performing it. The observer may then, later in situations where there is an incentive to do so, display the behavior. Based on the work of Bandura and his Social Learning Theory, the Social Cognition Learning Model asserts that culture is the prime determinant of individual development. Humans are the only species to have created culture, and every human child develops in the context of a culture. Therefore, a child’s learning development is affected in ways large and small by the culture in which he or she is enmeshed. Culture makes two types of contributions to a child’s intellectual development. First, through culture, children acquire much of their knowledge. Second, the surrounding culture provides a child with the processes or means of his or her thinking. In short, according to the Social Cognition Learning Model, culture teaches children both what to think and how to think. Internalization is an important concept in relation to this book. According to Vygotsky, 31 internalization is the process of learning a rich body of knowledge and tools of thought that first exist outside the individual and making them part of the individual’s own belief system. Although most of the work on Social Learning Theory refers to learning in childhood, observational learning can take place at any stage in life. In fact, when it comes to learning about many things in adult life, observational learning is sometimes the only method available. As noted earlier, with so few Americans having ever traveled outside the United States, it is sensible to deduce that the majority of their learning about other countries comes from not just observation when traveling abroad but secondary observation through film. To connect this new hypothesis on Social Learning through film observation to Bandura’s theory, it is practical to revisit each of Bandura’s four processes for learning and examine them in depth in relation to film observation by adults. Attention, which is the first process, refers to the fact that observers cannot learn unless they pay attention to what is happening around them.

16

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

When watching a film, an individual does tend to give his or her full attention to it, particularly if watching it at the cinema or on video/DVD or even watching it on television for the first time. Bandura states that the process of attention is influenced by the characteristics of the model, such as how much one likes or identifies with the model. In relation to film, Hollywood movie stars are perhaps the principal models for the general population in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and certainly so in the United States. The incredible popularity of “Women’s Magazines” and the televised Academy Awards ceremony is a testament to the public’s thirst for information about celebrities and their lives. It is plausible that the more an individual likes or identifies with a Hollywood actor, the more likely he or she is to internalize that actor’s behavior. Some studies have suggested that when children learn through watching television, the amount of attention they give the program directly correlates to the amount of information retained.32 It is outside the parameters of this book to test whether or not adults watching film retain more information than children watching television, but we do assume that when watching films, adults pay attention! Retention is the second process that Bandura highlights, which refers to the idea that observers must not only recognize the observed behavior but also be able to recall it at some later time. This is particularly salient in relation to film in that individuals do tend to be able to recall the names of films that they have seen, the general plot of those films, and the lead actors involved. Favorite or popular films, which have been viewed more than once, have a much greater recall for the individual. The third process of learning according to Bandura’s theory is that of production, in which observers must be capable of producing, or reproducing, the act. In relation to film, the production of the act does not have to be physical, but rather the emotional reproduction of the act is of prime interest. This is where the audience of a film learns about a person, or perhaps even a country, and later uses what they have learnt in their lives. For instance, the leading man in a film playing the President of the United States has to take time off from his budding romance to go off and bomb a terrorist sponsoring nation. This nation is described in several scenes as being worthy of bombing and is essentially the current “baddie” of the world. Later, a member of the audiences hears something about that Rogue country that was bombed in the film. They will undoubtedly associate that country with “the baddies.”33 The fourth and final process of learning is that of motivation in which observers will only perform the act if they have some reason for doing so. Bandura posits that the presence of reinforcement or punishment (either

Introduction

●

17

to the model or directly to the observer) becomes especially important in this process. In relation to film, the ideas presented and modelled are almost immediately internalized, especially if the model receives positive reinforcement. If the hero of a film manages to “save the day” and “win the girl,” then his actions are internalized by the audience as his belief structure. These then become inherent parts of the individual’s own belief system. The innovative theory outlined in the preceding paragraphs is in keeping with the framework of the Social Cognition Learning Model, which asserts that culture is the prime determinant of individual development. The overarching belief that culture teaches individuals what to think and how to think fits perfectly into the idea that popular culture, in particular film, is a medium capable of transmitting ideas and beliefs about others, other cultures, and other countries. In this way, Social Learning Theory supports the assumption of this book that children, and adults as well, begin to learn and associate certain behaviors through watching films. One of the most interesting films in relation to this concept and the Middle East is Disney’s Aladdin (1992). Academy Award winning Aladdin 34 (1992) is about a street urchin who lives in the large and bustling town of Agrabah with his pet monkey and best friend, Abu. Aladdin meets a disguised Princess Jasmine in the marketplace, and they start to fall in love. However, Aladdin must first escape the clutches of the evil Jafar before he and the princess can live happily ever after. The tale involves all the classical elements of the fantastical Middle East such as f lying carpets, magic lamps with wishgranting genies, opulent palaces, and extremely poor peasants. Ideas such as having a hand cut off for stealing, women having to obey men and having their marriages arranged are all included. Although this film is for the entertainment of children with its catchy tunes and eyedazzling animation, the traditional stereotypes of the region are actively being passed on to a new generation. It is the transmission of cultural mores in this manner that is central to the argument of this book.35 This isn’t the first instance of Disney becoming involved in the demonization of America’s enemies. As How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic illustrates, Disney has a record of vilifying enemies of the United States in Latin America through comics that include vultures representing Hegel and Marx and dogs dressed up like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro! Several scientific studies have used concepts similar to Social Learning Theory and film.36 One such study was examining the smoking

18

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

of cigarettes on film. The researchers examined 447 movies (excluding science fiction and animation that are not meant to depict reality) and they discovered that smoking occurred in 23 percent of films, which was in line with the 22 percent of U.S. citizens who smoke. It was also found that 36 percent of villains smoked compared to 21 percent of heroes. According to the President of the American College of Chest Physicians, Paul Kvale, [People] can be inf luenced by what they view in the movies. . . . This study emphasizes the need for responsible filmmaking when it comes to portraying smoking.37

Obviously, people are not just inf luenced by smoking in film but by all the “messages” that the film contains. Thank You For Smoking (2006) is a satire that explores the influence of lobbies in the United States on public opinion. Rob Lowe portrays a Hollywood film producer who states that the only people in films to smoke now are “R AVs” which stands for Russians, Arabs, and Villains. The film explores how films significantly inf luence peoples’ beliefs. *

*

*

Although the administrations and policies of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) are mentioned in the various country-specific chapters, it is important to brief ly examine the climate of each of their administrations and their overarching policy objectives in relation to the whole as well as to each other. A timeline of policy and economic climate change is imperative if one is to understand the subsequent policy actions as well as the films that were made during the various administrations. The Carter Administration The 1970s was a time of accelerated change. The world was becoming faster paced than ever before, and many believe that innocence was becoming a thing of the past. For the first time, some women were able to control their fertility, through the use of The Pill, which put men on the back foot as a woman could now take charge of how many children she would have and when she would have them. This subsequently led to an increase in casual sex and general promiscuity. The loss of morality as some saw it was not just confined to female reproduction but was

Introduction

●

19

rife in politics too. The Watergate break-in and its subsequent fallout was the figurative “loss of virginity” for U.S. politics. Jimmy Carter, as the first elected President since Nixon’s resignation, took control of the reins of a country in a state of moral decline, which many suggested was without a focus. The current enemy of the United States, the USSR, was not as menacing and uniting an enemy as it had once been. In fact, in 1977, the United States and the USSR along with fifteen other countries signed the Nuclear Proliferation pact, curbing the spread of nuclear weapons. This was perhaps the beginning of the end of the Cold War. James Earl Carter Jr. became the thirty-ninth President of the United States, having previously been the Governor of Georgia. Carter inherited an America that was still reeling from the disappointment of the Vietnam War and the economic stagflation that followed. It has been suggested that Carter was elected over Gerald Ford more because of the public’s resentment of Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon than his ability to be President. Carter promised open government after the horrors of Watergate, and as a result a political unknown moved into the White House. Under Carter, interest rates reached their highest levels since World War II, and the Administration froze domestic oil prices in response to the rising prices from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries(OPEC). Carter’s own invention of economic well-being, the Misery Index, rose 50 percent in four years. The Misery Index was a term coined by Chicago economist Robert Barro in the 1970s. It simply adds together the rates of inflation and unemployment. By the summer of 1976, the Misery Index was 13.57 percent. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving the country a Misery Index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election, but by 1980, when President Carter was running for reelection against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98 percent. Carter had failed to reform the tax system and to reduce the size of the government bureaucracy as he had promised during the 1976 campaign, despite the Democratic Party controlling both Houses of Congress. In his one term as President, Carter had several successes including the Panama Canal treaties, 38 the Camp David Accords, and the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union.39 The historic 1978 signing of the Camp David Agreement, “Framework for Peace” in the Middle East by Egypt’s President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin under the supervision of President Carter was a highlight of his Presidency and earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. Carter’s Presidency was seen as one of peace and human rights, and his administration founded the

20

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Departments of Energy and Education and enacted strong legislation on environmental protection. President Carter initially departed from the long-held policy of containment toward the Soviet Union, as first articulated in the Truman Doctrine, which had been continued by all subsequent American Presidents, both Republican and Democrat. In its place, Carter promoted his foreign policy as being one that would place human rights at the forefront. This was intended to be a break from the policies of several predecessors, in which human rights abuses were often overlooked if they were committed by a nation that was allied to the United States. In this style, the administration ended support to the historically U.S.backed Somoza government in Nicaragua, and gave millions of dollars in aid to the nation’s new regime, following a Sandinista coup. Carter continued the policy of President Nixon of “normalizing” relations with People’s Republic of China, granting full diplomatic and trade relations, thus ending official relations with the Republic of China.40 One of the major contributors to Carter’s political downfall was the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the American hostages that were taken inside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Islamic fundamentalist revolutionaries after Carter gave sanctuary to exiled dictator Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later the same year left Carter appearing impotent, as America witnessed its influence declining abroad. In fact, only 39 percent of Americans approved of the way Carter handled the hostage crisis.41 The Carter Doctrine was created in response to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. It stated that Any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.42

Part of the Carter Doctrine included the establishment of a rapid deployment force and a $40 billion program to train Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which included future members of the Taliban and followers of Osama bin Laden. Carter’s Presidency and the feeling of Americans during his Administration was one of humiliation both domestically and internationally. A telling sign was the American boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics, which was held in Moscow. This was Carter’s way of dealing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It appeared to the majority of

Introduction

●

21

the American public that whilst Carter was busy focusing on “soft” issues, such as the environment,43 he was overlooking the true needs of the American people. The Reagan Administration On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan took office as the fortieth President of the United States. At the age of sixty-nine, he was the oldest man ever sworn into that office. The election of Ronald Reagan, actor-turnedpolitician, was in essence the elevation of Hollywood into the White House itself. Ronald Reagan was a remarkable man. From humble beginnings in America’s mid-west, he became a Hollywood sex symbol and finally leader of the free world. He had a photographic memory and was everything an actor should be. He was charming, had a good sense of timing, and was well known for his oratorical skill. Reagan appealed to almost every American, even the ones who didn’t vote for him or who disagreed with some of his policies. He loved America. He loved Americans. Reagan managed to restore the people’s confidence in their country and in their worth and superiority, which had taken quite a beating during the scandals of Watergate under Nixon and the humiliation of the Iranian Hostage crisis under Carter. He promised to restore the United States to its position as a “shining city on the hill”: I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still. And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.44

It was the beliefs of Reagan and his policies that set the tone for the 1980s in America. Reagan was a dedicated Christian. He believed in God and the Church and tried to restore prayer to public schools. He

22

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

made Americans feel good about themselves and their country. He made America more conservative and as such brought in legislation such as increasing the minimum drinking age to 21. His policies seemed to have had an old-fashioned purity about them that was more in line with the America of the 1930s than those one would have expected to follow the decline since the presidencies of Nixon and Carter. Interestingly, Reagan was one of the first people to be able to view the footage of the liberated World War II concentration camps when it was delivered to the first Motion Picture Unit in 1945. This was a major influence on his worldview and perhaps one of the reasons he was so horrified by the thought of terrorism and abuse. In 1983, Sally Ride became the first U.S. woman in space, and it appeared to be the beginning of the elevation of women into previously male-dominated spheres, but feelings about women were also very traditional in this era. Under Reagan, attitudes started to change and become more conservative after the liberalness and “free love” of the 1970s. Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor as the first female member of the U.S. Supreme Court, which won him accolades. Although he may have regretted this decision when in 1983, the Supreme Court declared that many local abortion restrictions were unconstitutional. This went very much against Reagan’s belief that abortions should be practically outlawed, but in 1986, the Supreme Court reaffirmed abortion rights. Day O’Connor had argued that the trimester-based system devised by the Court from Roe vs Wade (1973) was unworkable. Reagan did not believe in a woman’s right to choose, but he went further than that and in fact brought in legislation that those clinics providing girls under the age of consent with birth control information must, by law, notify the girl’s parents. Not only was he against illegitimate births, abortions, and birth control, he was also against “promiscuity” and disliked the term “sexually active” because it lessened the pejorative connotations of the act. In 1983, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was formally identified. It was a significant problem amongst the homosexual community in America, particularly in San Francisco and the Bay area. Reagan did not speak out about AIDS for another four years despite his good friend and fellow actor Rock Hudson having been diagnosed in 1985. The first official mention of AIDS by the administration was on October 15, 1982, by Larry Speakes, Reagan’s Press Secretary, when asked by a reporter about the “Gay Plague.” Speakes answered: “I don’t have it, do you?” which was met by laughter from the press corps. In fact, it was treated with little respect by anyone within the administration, with Pat Buchanan, Reagan’s Communications Director, stating: “AIDS

Introduction

●

23

is nature’s revenge on gay men.” On April 2, 1987, Reagan said in a speech talking about sex education in schools “Let’s be honest with ourselves, AIDS information cannot be what some call ‘value neutral.’ After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don’t medicine and morality teach the same lessons.”45 By this time in the United States, 41,027 people had died and another 71,176 people had been diagnosed with AIDS.46 By the end of Reagan’s term in office, 115,786 people had been diagnosed with the virus in the United States and more than 70,000 Americans had died. It has also been suggested that the United States possesses a responsibility as the world hegemon to address several global problems such as poverty and the spread of AIDS.47 A film worthy of note on this topic is Troma’s War (1988), where Arabs and some other “terrorists” try to infect Americans with the AIDS virus as a way of controlling the United States. This film came at the peak of public anxiety of the virus when how AIDS was spread and what the outcomes were for sufferers were still unknowns. During Reagan’s Presidency, the American economy experienced sharp cuts in income tax rates, a broad tax reform, which created economic growth without inf lation, and a reduction in unemployment. It wasn’t all smooth economic sailing during this period, however. In 1982, the U.S. economy slipped into the worst recession in forty years with persistently high unemployment and interest rates. However, by 1984, the economy had improved, inf lation was under control, and the tax reform bill became law. As a result, Reagan won reelection in 1984 in a landslide victory with 59 percent of the vote. When he left office in 1989, with two-thirds of Americans approving his performance during his two terms and the election of his two-term Vice President George Bush Sr., the United States had an enormous budget deficit of $152 billion and a debt of $2,281.1 billion. Domestically, Reagan inherited an economy in stagflation and fought high inflation recession with across-the-board tax cuts and a reduction in social welfare spending that became known as “Reaganomics.” It led to the recovery of the economy but the downside was the tripling of the national debt by the end of his second term. On the social domestic level, Reagan was a fervent anticommunist and conservative. He initiated the “War on Drugs” and was seen as bringing pride back to America. Internationally, Reagan continued to increase military spending to fight the Cold War through his “peace through strength” policy. He moved away from the détente observed by Carter and renewed the arms race in order to defend against the “Evil Empire.”48

24

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The Reagan Doctrine referred to the Administration’s policy of supporting anticommunist groups, including armed insurgencies against communist governments. This policy led to the funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua, both of which had very serious ramifications for the United States in the longer term but at the time were seen as essential in the fight against Communism. In contrast to this support for these militant groups, the Administration denounced many other militant groups as terrorists such as Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Reagan was a well-received and much-needed change for the American public. His bright optimism was legendary and in direct contrast to his somewhat serious and dour predecessor. Upon leaving office in 1989, Reagan had the highest job approval rating of any outgoing president at 64 percent; this was not matched until Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a 65 percent job approval rating. It was Reagan’s personal beliefs and experiences that decided the focus of his policies during his Presidency. He was staunchly anticommunist. When he was President of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in the 1940s and 1950s, he resisted what he believed to be a communist plot to subvert the film industry. He in fact testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee about communism in Hollywood. The Committee found that the Communist Party U.S.A. was behind SAG strikes and was acting on orders from their “masters” in the Soviet Union. It was personal experiences Reagan had such as these that continued to shape his views on the threat of communism to the United States. In an effort to combat communism, defense spending was increased as was the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),49 also referred to as Star Wars. However, in 1982, Reagan announced the start of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) with Soviet Union. This was just the beginning of a change toward the once reviled “evil empire,” as Reagan had called the Soviet Union. In a series of Summits,50 Reagan and the Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev met and continued the process toward “glasnost,” “perestroika,” and arms reduction. It was during Reagan’s four-day visit to Moscow in 1988 that the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) was developed, which provided for the elimination of all short- and intermediate-range land-based nuclear weapons held by the United States and Soviet Union. This treaty also included groundbreaking provisions on verification inspections. On June 12, 1987, Reagan delivered a speech at the Brandenburg Gate to the people of West Berlin. This

Introduction

●

25

speech was of course also heard on the east side of the Berlin wall. In it he said: General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!51

This speech by Reagan played a significant part in the collapse of communism, the end of the Cold War, and ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. The Bush (41) Administration On January 20, 1989, George Herbert Walker Bush was inaugurated as the forty-first President of the United States of America. In his inauguration address, he tried to set the tone for America over the next four years. In some areas this was achieved, but in others, the remnants of Reagan’s Presidency persisted. As stated by Professor Warren Cohen in his book America’s Failing Empire: US Foreign Relations Since the Cold War (2005), George H.W. Bush was a very different man to Ronald Reagan. Before he ascended the Presidency, George Bush had already had a prominent political career. In the 1970s, he held numerous posts during both the Nixon and Ford Administration including Chairman of the Republican National Committee, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the U.S. Envoy to China, and the Director of the CIA. He was also a board member of the Committee on Present Danger and served as Vice President for eight years during the Reagan Administration. In this capacity, he became the first Vice President to ever become Acting President albeit for only eight hours.52 After this brief taste of the Presidency, Vice President Bush ran for President in 1988. His election victory was a landslide,53 which many attribute to his “thousand points of light speech”54 that outlined his purpose for America over the next eight years and relied heavily on the successes he and President Reagan had had during the Reagan Administration. Bush himself, during his acceptance speech of the Republican nomination, gave an example of this reliance: Eight years ago . . . I stood here with Ronald Reagan and we promised, together, to break with the past and return America to her greatness. Eight years later look at what the American people have produced: the

26

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

highest level of economic growth in our entire history and the lowest level of world tensions in more than fifty years. . . . My friends, eight years ago this economy was f lat on its back, intensive care. And we came in and gave it emergency treatment. And got the temperature down by lowering regulation, and got the blood pressure down when we lowered taxes. And pretty soon the patient was up, back on his feet, and stronger than ever. . . . In 1940, when I was barely more than a boy, Franklin Roosevelt said we shouldn’t change horses in midstream. My friends, these days the world moves even more quickly, and now, after two great terms, a switch will be made. But when you have to change horses in midstream, doesn’t it make sense to switch to one who’s going the same way?55

Bush outlined his Presidency as being a continuation of the Reagan Administration policies but with an increasing emphasis on eliminating drugs, eliminating crime, reducing abortion, and increasing educational standards in America. President Bush appeared to have little focus on women’s issues except in the case of abortion. As a staunch pro-life advocate, Bush believed that America should change its attitude from abortion to adoption: We’ve got to change from abortion, to adoption. And let me tell you this: Barbra and I have an adopted granddaughter. And the day of her christening we wept with joy. I thank God that her parents chose life.56

In many of his speeches Bush encouraged young women to choose giving “life” to their unborn child and then to seek adoption for that child as an alternative to abortion: There are young women to be helped who are about to become mothers of children they can’t care for and might not love. They need our care, our guidance, and our education, though we bless them for choosing life.57

One of the highlights of the Bush Presidency was overseeing the end of the Cold War. On July 6, 1990, the Western alliance proposed a joint action with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe thus ending the Cold War, but it was not until February 1, 1991, that President Bush and Soviet Leader Boris Yeltsin proclaimed the Cold War at an end. The War on Drugs and the War on Crime were initiated under the Reagan Administration and were continued with increasing impetus by Bush. He believed that the “scourge” would be stopped only through American society rising up combating the issue head on and with

Introduction

●

27

harsher penalties for the selling of drugs and for drug related crime58 and the idea of “zero-tolerance”59 became the catch-cry for the Bush Administration in these areas: The most obvious now is drugs. And when that first cocaine was smuggled in on a ship, it may as well have been a deadly bacteria, so much has it hurt the body, the soul of our country. And there is much to be done and to be said, but take my word for it: This scourge will stop! 60

And I want a drug free America—and this will not be easy to achieve. . . . I challenge the young people of our country to shut down the drug dealers around the world. Unite with us, work with us. “Zero tolerance,” “Zero tolerance” isn’t just a policy, it’s an attitude. Tell them what you think of people who underwrite the dealers who put poison in our society. And while you’re doing that, my administration will be telling the dealers: whatever we have to do we’ll do, but your day is over, you are history. 61

Despite Bush’s claims during his 1988 election campaign of the American economy being stronger than ever, the tail end of the late 1980s recession continued to adversely affect his term in office. Although Bush promised not to raise taxes or institute any new taxes, 62 he did so in 1990, which caused a deepening of public mistrust in his economic management abilities. Many saw this as a contributing factor to his defeat in the 1992 election against Bill Clinton who was firmly focused on fixing the economy. When President Bush left office, the United States had its highest deficit ever of $290.1 billion. The Presidency of George Bush (41) saw a slight shift in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East and North African region. Whereas his predecessor was focused upon Iran, U.S. hostages in the region, and Libya, Bush’s focus was on Kuwait and Iraq, although some of the initiatives of the Reagan Administration had follow-on effects. Saddam Hussein had been a strong ally of the United States throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This changed very suddenly when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Although, Saddam Hussein maintains that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave tacit approval for his invasion of Kuwait, relations between the United States and Iraq rapidly deteriorated. Although President Bush enjoyed a popularity rise following the military success of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, it was short lived due to the economic recession at home. It has been suggested that his failure to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the

28

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

reason he was a one-term president. This period heralds the first time Iraq and Iraqis are singled out in a pejorative way in Hollywood film, which reflects the change in status of Iraq from U.S. ally, to U.S. foe in the real world. The Clinton Administration After twelve years of Republican government, Bill Clinton was seen by many as a breath of fresh air for the American public. Clinton was the third youngest U.S. president, the first to have been born after World War II, and as a result his Presidency marked a generational shift from his predecessors who were either World War II veterans or had experienced the birth of the Cold War in the 1950s. Clinton’s domestic focus included upgrades to the education system, restricting the sale of handguns, strengthening environmental laws, and protecting the paid employment of parents who had to care for sick children. Internationally, Clinton focused on reducing barriers to trade, and globalization, which became a watchword of his Administration, and mediating in the conflict in Northern Ireland and between Israel and the Palestinians. As a result of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton became only the second president to ever be impeached 63 but was acquitted. Seen by many as a typical “baby-boomer” Clinton seemed to be able to relate to almost everyone. His charisma was widely acknowledged, and despite what may have been “deadly” issues for some presidents such as avoidance of military service in Vietnam, past marijuana use, womanizing, and questionable business dealings, Clinton always seemed able to charm his way out of trouble. His defeat of George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election was largely as a result of his platform focusing on domestic issues such as the economic recession. 64 Under the Clinton Administration, the United States had its first balanced federal budget since 1969, and the economy enjoyed continuous expansion and reductions in the level of unemployment, the lowest in over thirty years. When he assumed the Presidency, the United States had the largest budget deficit in its history, but when he left office, Clinton had converted it to the largest surplus in U.S. economic history. Although there is no formal “Clinton Doctrine” as such, it has been argued that Clinton’s foreign policy did have a degree of coherence necessary to sustain a “doctrine.” Out of the five possible Clinton Doctrines that have been proposed, it has been suggested that the best case for

Introduction

●

29

being regarded as the Clinton Doctrine relates to the doctrine of Rogue States. 65 Under Clinton, the United States signed legislation that sought to economically isolate the Rogue States of Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Iraq and to also take actions against the trading partners of these countries including Europe and Canada. 66 Clinton was the first Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to serve two full terms as President, and when he left office in 2001, he had the highest job approval rating of any outgoing president and an amazing 76 percent approval of his handling of the economy during his term in office. The Bush (43) Administration The Presidency of George W. Bush has altered completely the dynamics of international politics and redefined the role of the United States on the world stage. During his 2000 presidential election campaign, Bush campaigned on the platform of introducing tax cuts, maintaining a surplus federal budget, restructuring the armed forces, and was against the use of the U.S. armed forces in “nation building” attempts overseas. By the time of his second inaugural speech, Bush was focused on spreading freedom and democracy. Domestically, Bush is very similar to his Republican predecessors. He is opposed to abortion, same-sex marriages, and affirmative action. On an economic level, during the first term of his Administration, Congress passed three major tax cuts, but the Administration has since returned to deficit budgets, which have reached a record level for annual deficits. *

*

*

This first chapter has outlined the framework in which this book will operate. The next chapter will examine the collapse of the bipolar world system and the emergence of the Rogue States and their characteristics. This will be followed by a series of case studies of each of the Rogue States that will place the state under examination into its historical context and explore its representation in Hollywood film. Chapter 3 will provide the first of the case studies, where the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in U.S. demonology and film will be analyzed. Iran is an interesting case study, as it emerged as a Rogue State well over a decade before the collapse of communism and the end of

30

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

bipolarity. This was because the Islamic Republic of Iran was as aggressively anticommunist as it was anti-American and could not be seen even by the most ardent anticommunist as being linked to Moscow. The following chapter, Chapter 4, will examine Cuba and its transformation from Soviet Proxy into Rogue State. Following the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, Cuba remained a communist state although it was shaken by the failure of its major supporter. Cuba, rather than being welcomed into the international community as part of the New World Order, was shunned by the United States and deemed to be a Rogue State. Cuba is the only former Soviet ally to gain this dubious distinction, and many argue it was Cuba’s integral role during the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis, in addition to the power of the Cuban refugee lobby, that has led to its continued demonization by the United States. The fact that the rest of the international community sees Cuba as less of a threat and more of a “failed state” only lends this argument credence. The following chapter, Chapter 5, will examine the troubled relationship between the United States and Libya, which during the Reagan Presidency emerged as a bête noir 67 of American foreign policy, and earned the then unusual distinction of being bombed (in 1986) by the United States. In a memorable speech, President Reagan referred to Libya and its leader by saying, the American people are not, I repeat, not going to tolerate intimidation, terror, and outright acts of war against this nation and its people. And we’re especially not going to tolerate these attacks from outlaw states run by the strangest collection of misfits, loony tunes, and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich. 68

More recently, however, Libya, alone among the Rogue States, seems to have redeemed itself in the eyes of Washington. This process will also be analyzed, and it will be compared to the highs and lows of Libyan portrayal in Hollywood films. The greatest of the Rogue States in recent years has without a doubt been Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The following chapter, Chapter 6, will analyze the troubled history of U.S.–Iraqi relations since the advent of Saddam Hussein leading up to and including the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Not surprisingly, Iraqis have fared badly in Hollywood films since the demonization of Saddam, but, now that some Iraqis are fighting on the

Introduction

●

31

side of the United States against a terrorist insurgency, their treatment by Hollywood has become less black and white. Chapter 7 will explore the United States’ relationship with North Korea, which has recently emerged as a Rogue State with its nuclear ambitions securing it a place on the list. The United States is actively trying to restrain North Korea’s ambitions, and this will be examined in this chapter. Sudan, the Rogue State with the least international coverage and political inf luence, will be examined in Chapter 8. Sudan has a long and complex history with the United States and was briefly home to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. It was bombed by the United States during the Clinton Administration and is often referred to as being a “basket case.” The final case study is the Arab Republic of Syria, a country that was not an original member of the Axis of Evil, but which for a variety of reasons has attracted the displeasure of the United States and which is seen to be not only supporting terrorism but also developing weapons of mass destruction.69 However, Syria has largely been ignored in its Hollywood portrayal, and reasons for this will be explored through the course of the chapter. After examining these seven case studies, Chapter 10 will draw all of these threads together and provide a more broad ranging analysis of the overall findings of the book.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2

The End of the Cold War: Rogue States and Their Characteristics

T

he emergence of Rogue States, and latterly the Axis of Evil, is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, countries have had enemies, and those enemies have, without doubt, been demonized. Although it might appear that the concept of Rogue States is a rather arbitrary one, it is useful in understanding American foreign policy, especially with reference to the Middle East. The naming of a state as being “Rogue” defines its place in U.S. foreign policy and the level of U.S. interactions with that state as well as the type of U.S. policies toward it.1 This chapter will chart the emergence of Rogue States as the “new enemies” that grew out of the combination of the end of the bipolar world system and the emergence of a sole hegemon. The effects of this new world system on individual states and their portrayal by the sole hegemon’s movie industry will be the subject of analysis in succeeding chapters. The Cold War was the open, yet constrained, rivalry that developed after World War II between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. Although it did not lead to direct conf lict between the two superpowers, the Cold War was waged by other means such as economic pressure, selective aid, propaganda, assassination, and low-intensity military operations. Limited military conf licts such as the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan can all be seen as manifestations of the Cold War as can CIA-assisted military coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile. In these Cold War confrontations, each superpower operated by arming, funding, or even training surrogates. By the 1970s, the Cold War was beginning to wind down as the Soviet alternative was plainly less appealing than the Western model. In

34

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

the 1970s, a period of détente led to the world being less polarized along Cold War lines with some smaller countries having more opportunity to assert their independence. The period of détente saw the two superpowers being partially able to recognize their common interest in trying to curb the further spread and proliferation of intermediate range missiles, and indeed nuclear weapons. 2 Toward of the end of the 1970s, U.S. relations with the Soviet Union deteriorated again because of events in Afghanistan and Washington itself, and a new phenomenon began to emerge: that of the Rogue State. Rogue States, also known as Outlaw States, Backlash States, or States of Concern, do not have a typical “dictionary definition.” The term Rogue is defined as being either “a mischievous but likeable person” or “a large wild animal with destructive tendencies driven away or living apart from the herd” or “a person or thing that is defective or unpredictable”3 The concept of a Rogue State incorporates all of these attributes to some degree, except perhaps the first. A Rogue State tends to be a state that acts contrary to the wishes of other powers, particularly the sole-superpower, and engages in actions that these powers find unacceptable. Such actions can include the attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), committing human rights violations, harboring suspected terrorists or supporting terrorist organizations, and other offences such as tolerating drug trafficking and political corruption.4 The term Rogue State has been described as “the pejorative appellation [which] has been selectively applied by powerful Western nations.”5 Although the term Rogue State may not be clearly defined, it is clearly understood in practice which countries are considered Rogue States and which are not. It is easy to argue that while almost all countries have, to some degree, Rogue tendencies, the United States has deemed just seven countries to be Rogues: Iran, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Rogue States first emerged as a result of the dynamics of the Cold War. In the bipolar world, most countries were either aligned with the United States or the Soviet Union. L. Carl Brown explores this alignment process in his “Rules of the Eastern Question Game”6 in which he asserts that the superpowers see a country that is aligned with them as “the best friend we have” whereas a country that is aligned with the opposing superpower is viewed as “the cat’s paw of our enemy.” It was along these lines that the world was divided during the Cold War. The end of the Cold War did not mean immediate peace and stability for the United States. Instead, threats to American security had simply changed, and although the threat of a large-scale nuclear disaster

The End of the Cold War

●

35

had been diminished, the threats posed by Rogue States with access to a small number of nuclear weapons had increased.7 There are many different types of nation-states and not all states are equal. Since the end of the Cold War, at the top of the hierarchical order of nation-states is the United States, followed by other highly developed countries such as the EU member states. Continuing down the list are the transitional countries such as Russia, then the newly industrialized countries such as Brazil. At the end of the list are the less developed countries of the “South,” the “failed states” such as Somalia, and finally the Rogue States. Perhaps the only group below the Rogue States is the stateless peoples such as the Palestinians. 8 With states being at differing levels of development, it is clear that this imbalance can lead to both exploitation and resentment. It is argued that the rise in the level of international terrorism is a result of this imbalance. Further, the focus by policy makers, particularly in the United States, on the Rogues States has been to the detriment of the Failed States.9 It has been assumed by American foreign policy makers that Rogue States are inherently aggressive and represent a threat to international peace and security. However, it has been established that this is untrue and that in fact the Rogue States as identified by the United States are no more likely to become involved in militarized interstate disputes or to initiate militarized action or use force first than non-Rogue States.10 However, it has been demonstrated that states with higher levels of inequality, repression, and domestic violence do exhibit higher levels of violence during international disputes and during international crises.11 Eight violations committed by states have been identified as the criteria for having engaged in deviant state behavior. These are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

threatening international security; possessing disproportionately large weapons arsenals; endangering regional stability; encouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; breaching international human rights standards; committing genocide and other crimes against humanity; engaging in war crimes; and participating in the trafficking of drugs.12

It has been charged that it is not in fact Rogue States’ supposed possession of WMD or affiliations with terrorist groups that are principally responsible for the negative U.S. foreign policy stance toward them but rather the Rogue States’ rejection of U.S. unilateralism.13

36

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The first Rogue State, the Islamic Republic of Iran, was born out of a change in the “proxy arrangement” after the 1979 revolution. Iran was not aligned with either the Soviet Union or the United States and in fact reviled both communism and capitalism. Another framework was needed to make sense of this new structure of an aggressively nonaligned but nonetheless anti-American country, and this framework became the model for identifying and labeling the Rogue State. It wasn’t long before other countries emerged that challenged the U.S. hegemony but were not cats’ paws of the Soviet Union. Libya was the next Rogue State and endured U.S. bombing campaigns and sanctions in the mid-1980s. It was perhaps because Libya was nonaligned, small, and all but friendless that it was an easier target for U.S. military action as the threat of Soviet reprisal was minimal. As the years went by, Iran and Libya were joined by a growing number of other countries that were also deemed by Washington to be Rogue States. Cuba, uniquely among the Rogue States, passed from being seen by Washington as a Soviet proxy to becoming a Rogue State for largely historical reasons. The United States certainly considers Cuba to be a Rogue State but is the only country to do so, and this has more to do with historical associations and geographical proximity than any threat Cuba poses today. This lends credibility to the suggestion that to be labeled a Rogue State has more to do with being defamed for an ulterior purpose than as a result of actual deeds. By the twenty-first century, there were seven countries that were considered to be Rogue States by the United States. President George W. Bush singled out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as being an “Axis of Evil,”14 with Syria, Sudan, and Libya later being included in the “list” of Rogue States.15 Interestingly, almost all of the Rogue States are in the Middle East: Iran, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan. The only countries that are not in the Middle East are North Korea and Cuba. Some argue that the inclusion of North Korea in the “Axis of Evil” was merely a means for the United States to distance itself from the perception that the ensuing “War on Terror” was not in fact a “war against Islam.”16 *

*

*

During the Cold War, James Bond battled the Russians, the world enemy at the time. With the end of the Cold War, however, James Bond modernized too, and in each film, he battles against the current enemy. In Never Say Never Again (1983), Bond battles and foils a Soviet/Middle

The End of the Cold War

●

37

Eastern plot to steal nuclear weapons. In GoldenEye (1995), Bond battles to stop world destruction due to technology from the crumbling Soviet Union falling into enemy hands. In Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), Bond’s enemies are the Chinese and a media mogul intent on world media domination. In a more recent Bond film Die Another Day (2002), Bond saves the world from corrupt North Koreans and the exploitation of gene therapy. The Bond films try to tap into the zeitgeist to give them a current f lavor and more audience appeal and they achieve this goal by focusing on the current “enemy.” Never Say Never Again (1983) is a standard Bond film in that it does not take itself too seriously, but the message of the film is extremely clear. The head of SPECTRE, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, sums up the plot extremely well when he says, I am Supreme Commander of SPECTRE, the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. Yesterday morning, the American Air Force launched 2 cruise missiles from Swadley Air Base in Great Britain. Through the ingenuity of SPECTRE, the dummy warheads they carried were replaced with live, nuclear warheads. Your weapons of destruction are now safely in our possession and will be moved to two secret targets. Please note the serial numbers of the missiles; they will confirm the truth. Your weapons of deterrence did not deter us from our objective! A terrible catastrophe now confronts you. However, it can be avoided by paying a tribute to our organization, amounting to twenty-five percent of your respective countries’ annual oil purchases. We have accomplished two of the functions that the name SPECTRE embodies: terror and extortion. If our demands are not met within seven days, we shall ruthlessly apply the third: revenge!

The film stars Sean Connery as the protagonist, Kim Basinger as the leading lady, Domino and Barbara Carrera as the female terrorist with a Middle Eastern heritage who has links to the Russians. It was made just following the emergence of Iran as the first Rogue State but before the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is a remake of a previous James Bond film Thunderball (1965),17 in which no Middle Easterners appeared. This is an important film for many reasons. First, the incredible success of the entire James Bond franchise has meant that this film was not only a huge box-office success at the time of release but it is still shown regularly on television today, and thus it has been able to inf luence new audiences for the past twenty years. Second, Bond films pride themselves on being contemporary. During the Cold War the Russians were the enemy, but in 1983 the producers

38

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

realized that a new “enemy” of the West was emerging in the Middle East, albeit pretty female ones, with nuclear weapons in their sights. This schema has continued in more recent years with the Chinese, North Koreans, and a “media mogul” being the enemy as well as WMDs being sold on the black market, to Middle Eastern terrorists, at a “weapons bazaar.”18 Third, the Bond films are renowned for their “Bond Girls.” Generally, these women are the up-and-coming stars of Hollywood. They are always beautiful with fantastic figures, and they usually have a romantic relationship with the hero.19 However, the portrayal of the only “Bond Girl” of Middle Eastern origin is atypical. In general, the actual names of the Bond Girls are a little tongue in cheek and slightly telling about the character. For example, in Diamonds Are Forever (1971), the heroine is called Tiffany Case, and in Goldfinger (1964), the heroine is named Pussy Galore. Carrera’s character however is named “Fatima Blush,” which is not very flattering, and Carrera is fuller-figured than other Bond Girls. Fatima tries to form a sexual relationship with Bond, but he resists. What really sets Fatima apart from the previous Bond Girls is that she is a “baddie.” Fatima carries a python around her neck and kills one of her colleagues, which she appears to take great pleasure in. Finally, Bond kills her with a modified pen, and all that is left of Fatima is her steaming shoes. Fatima is the first Bond Girl that Bond has ever killed. Although the film is a typical, blithe Bond film, the message for the audience is that the Middle East is associated with the baddies, they want to steal nuclear weapons from the West, and they are intent on using these weapons against the West. Fatima Blush may have been a sexy femme fatale and a Bond Girl, but she deserved to die for her link to the Middle East and the baddies. The enemy is an important concept that helps people define who they are. Enemies are a necessity. However, enemies are not constant. During the Cold War, the enemy of the West was the Soviet Union. This enemy was a constant for many years and was duly reflected as such in Hollywood film. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new enemy, both in reality and in film, was needed. One of the most consistently used enemies today, apart from the threat of alien invasion or extraterrestrial destruction, 20 is the terrorist. Not surprisingly, the most commonly depicted terrorist is an inhabitant of a Rogue State, most commonly from the Middle East and North African Rogues. The portrayal of people from the Middle East and North Africa has altered considerably over the past thirty years. In the 1970s, the most

The End of the Cold War

●

39

common portrayal of a Middle East inhabitant was that of a rich oil sheikh. Although the depiction was generally unf lattering with the sheikh often being lecherous, stupid, dirty, and repulsive, they were generally not seen as evil. During the 1980s, the portrayal of people from the region underwent a shift and the emergence of the hostage taker and terrorist stereotype began. As the Middle East and North Africa became more of an issue in international politics, this amplification was ref lected in an increased depiction of people from the area. Jack Shaheen’s book Reel Bad Arabs reviews over 900 Hollywood films that portray Arabs. Whilst Shaheen categorizes the films in terms of stereotypes: villains, sheikhs, maidens, Egyptians, Palestinians, as well as general gratuitous scenes and slurs, he stops short of actual analysis of these films. What comes from doing an analysis of his work is the change in Hollywood film over time. By looking at a chronological list of these films, one can easily see a trend develop. Just as Hollywood has gone through phases of certain genres being predominantly popular such as the Epics of the 1950s, 21 the Cowboy films of the 1950s, 22 the Musicals of the 1960s, 23 the Disaster films of the 1970s, 24 the Action movies of the 1980s, 25 and the Sci-Fi films of the 1990s, 26 it has also developed predominantly popular stereotypes of the inhabitant of the Middle East. Robert Fisk, amongst others, has suggested that the West portrays Arabs in film today as the Nazis depicted Jews in their films. 27 In the 1970s, Hollywood film usually portrayed people from the region as the stereotypical oil rich sheikh who fancied white women. The sheikh was usually unattractive and repugnant. This style of film borrows heavily from the anti-Semitic stereotypes of the German film industry under the Nazis. The parallels between the portrayal of Arabs, in 1970s Hollywood films, and Jews, in 1930s Nazi propaganda films, featuring bulbous noses, being dirty, dim-witted, and evil, are striking. One of the last films made in this style was Protocol (1984). The 1980s saw a shift toward people from the Middle East and North Africa being seen as hostage takers and terrorists. Films such as Nighthawks (1981), Flying High II: The Sequel (1982), Delta Force (1986), Broadcast News (1987), and Frantic (1988) became the benchmark for stereotypes of the region. This tendency continued in the 1990s with more and more films having a subplot involving terrorists from the Middle East. Movies such as True Lies (1994), The American President (1995), The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996), and The Siege (1998) were all high-grossing films with a Middle East terrorism subplot. What is more

40

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

compelling is that all these films relate U.S. foreign policy essentials regarding the Middle East to the audience. *

*

*

According to Anthony Lake, Assistant to President Clinton for National Security Affairs, Rogue States share common characteristics in that they are: . . . ruled by cliques that control power through coercion, they suppress basic human rights and promote radical ideologies. While their political systems vary, their leaders share a common antipathy toward popular participation that might undermine existing regimes. These nations exhibit a chronic inability to engage constructively with the outside world; they are often on the defensive, increasingly criticized and targeted with sanctions in international forums. Finally, they share a siege mentality. Accordingly, they are embarked on ambitious and costly military programs—especially in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile delivery systems—in a misguided quest to protect their regimes or advance their purposes abroad. 28

It is argued by many that as the sole superpower, it is up to the United States to neutralize, contain, or perhaps eventually transform these states into constructive members of the international community. Anthony Lake goes on to assert that, We seek to contain the inf luence of these states, sometimes by isolation, sometimes through pressure, sometimes by diplomatic and economic measures. 29

The concept of what constitutes a Rogue State has simplified somewhat over the past decade to focus solely on the elements of terrorism and WMDs with U.S. Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, observing that Rogue State are . . . state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations.30

These are seen as the generic traits that all Rogue States have in common. However, the other important factor that all these states have in common in the post–Cold War world, which is left unsaid, is that they

The End of the Cold War

●

41

have done something to anger the sole remaining superpower and as such have become pariahs and must be contained or even destroyed. There are a vast number of definitions 31 of what constitutes terrorism. The official definition of terrorism according to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a, . . . premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to inf luence an audience. 32

The CIA goes on to define “international terrorism” as being “terrorism involving the territory or citizens of more than one country.”33 By using these CIA definitions it is logically difficult to have “State Sponsored Terrorism.” Nevertheless, the United States accuses all the Rogue States of being states that sponsor terrorism. Critics argue that it is often governments that typically sponsor terrorism through both training and funding, and that what the United States terms “counterterrorism” is in fact terrorism. For the purposes of this book, the CIA definitions of what constitutes terrorism will be used, as this is the definition the United States government uses. Apart from terrorism, the other commonality that Rogue States are perceived to share is a desire to acquire WMDs. These weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people and can be nuclear, biological, or chemical. They can also include conventional explosive bombs used en masse. The label “weapons of mass destruction” has only recently been “expanded” to include not only nuclear weapons but also to include biological weapons, chemical weapons, and ballistic missiles. These are arms that have thus far killed scarcely anyone (biological weapons), and are vastly less effective (chemical weapons), as well as costly and often ineffectual (ballistic missiles). Meanwhile, economic sanctions have probably already taken the lives of more people in Iraq than have been killed by all weapons of mass destruction in history.34 Many argue that during the Cold War, it was the proliferation of WMD that ensured the war never turned “hot.” The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) posits that a WMD strike would invite a retaliatory WMD response that would lead to the destruction of both the attacker and the attacked. The MAD theory is based on the idea of deterrence, which was partially responsible for the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is widely accepted that the United States’ development of a national

42

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

missile defense (NMD) system is because the Rogue States may challenge the primacy of the United States.35 The 2002 Bush Doctrine,36 which refers to the new post–September 11, 2001, U.S. foreign policy, consists of a broad set of policy initiatives of pre-emption, unilateralism, military pre-eminence, and the “promotion of freedom and democracy worldwide.”37 This Doctrine is a major redefinition of America’s role in international politics, the final outcomes of which are yet to be fully understood. Critics claim that under President Bush’s leadership, the United States has entered a period of global imperialism,38 and associated with this is the U.S. neo-conservative agenda, as espoused by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, which is one of pre-emption rather than deterrence. John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, outlined this policy stance when he stated, Rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba, whose pursuit of weapons of mass destruction makes them hostile to US interests, will learn that their covert programs will not escape either detection or consequences. While we will pursue diplomatic solutions whenever possible, the United States and its allies are also willing to deploy more robust techniques, such as the interdiction and seizure of illicit goods. If rogue states are not willing to follow the logic of non-proliferation norms, they must be prepared to face the logic of adverse consequences. It is why we repeatedly caution that no option is off the table.39

Bolton went on to outline the U.S. policy strategy toward Iran and North Korea, which the United States perceives as the greatest threats. According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), there are at least 33 countries that are “possessing, pursuing or capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and missile delivery systems.”40 Of this list of thirty-three countries,41 only the Rogues States are considered to be a threat.42 Even as far back as 1994, the Rogue States were the countries perceived by Americans to be the greatest threat. In a Gallup survey Iraq, North Korea, and Iran topped the list of countries perceived to be the greatest threat to America. Figure 2.1 illustrates this finding.43 The possession of WMDs by Rogue States is an essential part of the Bush Doctrine in relation to the use of pre-emptive strikes. According to the Bush Doctrine, Rogue States that possess WMDs, or are in the process of trying to develop them, must be disarmed or stopped, and

The End of the Cold War

●

43

% of respondents

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Iraq

Figure 2.1 in 1994

North Korea

Iran

China

Russia Japan

Libya Germany India

Other

Countries that pose the greatest threat to the US according to Americans

this is where, as the sole remaining superpower, the U.S. policies of pre-emption can play themselves out. Many believe that the Bush Doctrine and the U.S. policy of the preemptive use of force to stop a Rogue State’s development of nuclear weapons, or any WMDs is not just unnecessary but actually unlawful under customary international law of self-defense.44 The policy was first used in the Afghanistan intervention following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and then the 2003 war against Iraq.45 In the case of Iraq, the use of pre-emptive action has been criticized, as the threat was not fully formed.46 The Bush Doctrine assumes that global terrorist organizations, weak states harboring such organizations, and Rogue States are the primary threats to the United States. It also assumes that the Cold War concepts of deterrence and containment no longer apply to Rogue States and terrorist organizations, which pose an unprecedented threat to U.S. security and thus require an unprecedented response.47 It has been criticized for being a unilateral policy marked by militarism in which U.S. military power is used to advance U.S. interests and geopolitical hegemony.48 Although supporters of the Bush Doctrine have argued that the policy pre-emption should be considered in the light of historical precedents, they argue that the failure to control arms led to both world wars. It is argued that the United States can no longer rely on a Cold War–era doctrine of nuclear deterrence, and thus the pre-emptive use of military force is justified in the case of the Rogue States.49 The policy of pre-emption in relation to the Rogue States is allegedly aimed at containing their WMD capabilities. The new policy of offence

44

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

being the best form of defense has transformed American foreign policy as well as the global method of disarmament. However, the continuing strength of this new global convention relies on the hegemonic power being willing and able to use unilateral pre-emptive armed force against Rogue States in the long term.50 Considered part of a broader strategy, pre-emption has perhaps already been effective as a deterrent to other Rogue States engaged in WMD programs. It has been argued the use of the pre-emption policy in Iraq succeeded in Libya abandoning its pursuit of WMDs.51 Many argue that the Bush Administration was right to focus its energy on a nexus of new threats, the combination of Rogue States, WMDs, and terrorism, to U.S. security following the events of September 11, 2001. They also believe it was right in its insistence that the United States retain the right to use force pre-emptively against these threats, even without the sanction of the international community.52 The Bush Administration’s “forward strategy” for counter-proliferation is one that emphasizes independent state initiatives to accelerate international efforts to deal with Rogue States and non-state terrorists that threaten state security with WMDs. This is needed, argues the United States, because organizations that deal with these issues, such as the United Nations, are too slow to react and are disadvantaged by the time-consuming methods of diplomacy and sanctions. It is argued that this more aggressive policy is needed for future successes in responding to WMD.53 It is argued that states will comply with international security regimes of nonproliferation only if the geostrategic dangers of noncompliance are greater than those of compliance.54 Under most circumstances Rogue States can be deterred from transferring nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. However, the threat of Regime Change, as outlined in the Bush Doctrine, negates this deterrence ability.55 *

*

*

One of the very first Hollywood films to deal with the concept of nuclear weapons and their destructive capabilities was the 1951 science fiction classic The Day the Earth Stood Still. In this film, an alien comes to Earth to warn humans not to carry nuclear weapons into space or they will face annihilation. The message of the film is clearly antiwar, and suggests that man with his new-found nuclear capabilities is the biggest threat to the world and depicts the result of man’s fixation with warfare as being a cemetery with thousands and thousands of

The End of the Cold War

●

45

headstones. Due to the inf luence of McCarthyism and the growing fear of communism, this kind of pacifist message was largely absent from Hollywood films over the following decades, with a couple of notable exceptions. One such example is Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 Hollywood classic Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. In this film, a deranged U.S. Air Force Colonel, Jack Ripper, sends his bomber wing to destroy the USSR as he suspects that the communists are conspiring to pollute the “precious bodily f luids” of the American people. The U.S. President meets with the Soviet Ambassador who tells him that if the USSR is hit by nuclear weapons, it will trigger a “Doomsday Machine” that will destroy all plant and animal life on Earth, which is the Hollywood version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Rather than the moralistic message of The Day the Earth Stood Still, Kubrick uses humor to get his essentially antiwar message across. The 1964 film Fail Safe is in a similar vein to Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Based on a novel of the same name, Fail Safe is about a technical malfunction in the Pentagon’s strategic control system. This malfunction causes a fallacious order to be sent to a B-58 bomber squadron on a routine training mission instructing the bombers to fly beyond their fail safe distance, at which point the flight crew are trained to cease communications and prepare to fulfill their objective by bombing Moscow. As the planes near their target, the crisis deepens, and together the Americans and Soviets decide on a final, desperate solution in which the United States has to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City in order to avoid a nuclear holocaust. Although there have been few films addressing the issue of chemical and biological weapons, one that stands out is Twelve Monkeys, made in 1995. Set in 2035, the film centers around a lethal virus that obliterated 99 percent of the world’s population in 1996. A prisoner is sent back in time to discover the origins of the pandemic so that scientists can study it before it mutates. It turns out that the virus was released into the community by a group of “revolutionaries” known as the Twelve Monkeys. This film, like Back to the Future (1985), is in essence a “time-travel movie,” but it has a much darker atmosphere due to its focus on a deadly biological epidemic and the possible obliteration of the human race. Although developments during the 1990s suggested a decline in the importance of nuclear weapons, it appears that there may be the

46

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

emergence of a “second nuclear age” as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and also as a deterrent for Rogue States who may engage in proliferation.56 The end of the Cold War has refined the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Whilst no longer used for classical deterrence, it is nevertheless needed due to potential irredentist claims by Russia and China, to reassure Germany and Japan, and as a result of the nuclear ambitions of the Rogue States.57 Nuclear deterrence is thus still very important in the post–Cold War world. Many experts believe that for deterrence to work, it should entail the use of both “carrots” and “sticks.”58 It has been suggested that the best way for the United States to deter nuclear armed Rogue States, and in particular Iran, is to itself develop a new class of lower-yield nuclear weapons. It is argued that although the United States could threaten the use of nuclear retaliation with its current capabilities, this would most likely be an “empty threat” because of the enormous destructive power of a nuclear strike. However, with the option of using a low-yield nuclear weapon, the doubt is eliminated on whether the United States would refrain from a retaliatory strike, thus making the threat of retaliation real.59 *

*

*

Since the end of World War II, the Soviet Union had been the primary “enemy” of the West, but as the Soviet Empire began to crumble and the bipolar world gave way to a new unipolar paradigm, the search began for a new “enemy” or “other.” In this context, it is possible to see how the Islamic Republic of Iran became the first country to be labeled a Rogue State as its fierce antiAmericanism was accompanied by an equally fierce anti-Communism and it was clearly not aligned with the Soviet Union. At the same time, it was pursuing policies that were deemed “inappropriate” by the United States and was, in the opinion of the United States, embracing a medieval obscurantism that the United States was unable to control or understand. Iran was then followed by Libya, Iraq, and even Syria in being seen as an Outlaw State. Another characteristic that these states share is that they are seen by the United States as being undemocratic, anti-Western, Islamic, sponsors of terrorism, and procurers of WMDs—all the things that the United States believes it is not.60 For instance, President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address in 2002 declared that Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom 61

The End of the Cold War

●

47

And Iraq continues to f launt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens 62

Furthermore, these states all have at some point voiced their opposition to the existence of Israel and made obvious their support for the Palestinians. According to Michael Klare, in his book Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy (1995), the Pentagon managed to keep the record levels of Cold War funding for the U.S. military by merely switching its focus from the Soviet Union to states that had been equipping themselves with advanced weaponry. Klare argues that the United States is largely responsible for the creation of the Rogue States and their stockpiles of WMDs as they had previously turned a blind eye to these developments or in some instances actively encouraged their efforts. Klare posits that these States became “Rogues” due to the need of the United States to create a new foreign policy to justify U.S. military expenditure rather than any actual change in policy by the Rogue States themselves. Middle East specialist Stephen Zunes 63 agrees with Klare that the U.S. policy focus on Rogue States is a direct result of the end of the Cold War and a need for the U.S. government to justify its military expenditure. Zunes goes on to explore the reasons why the majority of the Rogue States hail from the Middle East, and why Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Syria are considered to be Rogue States when other Middle Eastern states with similar human rights records, association with terrorist organizations, and nuclear proliferation ambitions are not. There are several key concepts that need to be considered in relation to the development of the Rogue States phenomenon. This includes the new challenges faced by the United States with the end of the Cold War and the resultant New World Order, the U.S. Policy of Dual Containment toward Iraq and Iran, and the post–9/11 War on Terror. With the end of bipolarity, the United States declared a New World Order 64 in which it was the sole-superpower, and International Relations were no longer seen in zero-sum terms.65 Under President Clinton, Washington was still coming to grips with its role as the world’s only superpower, and it was in this climate that the U.S. policy of dual containment was developed. Dual containment was an adaptation of the long-standing policy of Containment, which had ultimately resulted in collapse of the Soviet Union and U.S. victory in the Cold War. By the

48

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

1990s, a response was needed to the challenges posed by both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and that response was the policy of Dual Containment. The policy was designed to contain both Iran and Iraq and to prevent these countries from undertaking actions that were contrary to the interests of the United States. It was this period of change that saw the United States becoming a larger and larger target of international terrorist attacks. These attacks included the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which was Headquarters of the U.S. military personnel stationed there, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Interestingly, Clinton himself was apparently the target of an al-Qaida assassination plot. 66 Blowback (2004) suggests that America at this time was beginning to witness retaliation, particularly through acts of terrorism, by forces that the United States had helped to create and nurture as part of its struggle against the Soviet Union. Such groups were often supported in a covert or at least unreported way through weapons supply, training, and finance. Perhaps the most classic case of “blowback” experienced by the United States was its support for Osama bin Laden when he was helping the Afghan Mujahedeen fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. A further example is U.S. support of Saddam Hussein during his eight-year war against Iran. In both cases, erstwhile allies became bitter enemies and turned their American-provided expertise against the United States. The September 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaida against the United States were the largest on U.S. soil since 1862, resulting in a death toll of almost 3,000 people. As a result of these attacks, which many argue were a classic case of blowback, the United States initiated the “War on Terror” and subsequently the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as per the Bush Doctrine. The War on Terror shifted the focus of U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East resulting in the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. troops to topple the Taliban, which according to the Bush Administration was harboring the mastermind of the September 11 attack, Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan had the support of the United Nations and the international community. The next item on the American agenda was the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003 when the United States and the United Kingdom, with the help of some minor

The End of the Cold War

●

49

allies (named the “Coalition of the Willing”), invaded Iraq. This offensive lacked the approval of the United Nations and was deeply unpopular around the world. Nevertheless, after three weeks, the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the ongoing U.S. Occupation of Iraq began. The invasion of Iraq was carried out under the pretext of looking for weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam Hussein was firmly believed to be hiding despite his claims to the contrary. A secondary reason was the possible link between al-Qaida and the Iraqi dictator, and his human rights violations. This operation was very much in keeping with the new U.S. foreign policy of pre-emption. A final factor, which many cynics suggest was the primary reason for the invasion, was to secure access to the oil reserves in Iraq. Although the War on Terror started as a war to eradicate terrorism, particularly by al-Qaida, and put a stop to the support of terrorist groups by Rogue States, it has transformed to become a war against enemies of the United States, particularly the Rogue States. Following the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, political analysts are speculating about which country will be the next to undergo “Regime Change”67 at the hands of the United States with many believing that Syria and Iran are contenders for this dubious honor. 68 In February 2005, a Gallup survey asked Americans to rate their perceptions of various foreign countries. The results are shown in Figure 2.269 and clearly illustrate that the five Rogues States of Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, and Syria are the countries that Americans have the most unfavorable opinions of ranking them first, second, third, fourth, and sixth on the list of countries with the least favorable opinion respectively. These last two chapters have examined Social Learning Theory, the role of Hollywood in shaping public opinion, the historical relationship between the United States and the Rogue States, the origins and development of the idea of Rogue States among American policy makers, and has set out the criteria under which a country could be viewed as a Rogue State. These criteria can include having associations with terrorism, pursuing and developing WMDs, violating human rights, and flouting other international norms. Perhaps most importantly, the criteria for being a Rogue almost always include angering, or in some other way challenging, the United States. These chapters have also established a framework for the examination of the Rogue States, which will be explored further in the following chapters.

50

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Great Britain Poland Canada Japan Ukraine India Mexico Germany Israel Egypt Indonesia Jordan Russia France China Pakistan Afghanistan Saudi Arabia Syria The Palestinian Authority Cuba Iraq North Korea Iran

10

Total Favorable

0

Total Unfavorble

Figure 2.2 Perception of foreign countries

The relationship between the United States and the very first of the modern Rogue States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be the subject of the following chapter. This chapter will also examine the Hollywood films featuring Iran or Iranians, which have been produced since the Iranian Revolution derailed the Carter Administration.

CHAPTER 3

The Islamic Republic of Iran

A

ccording to Gallup’s 2006 World Affairs survey, more Americans consider Iran as the greatest enemy to the United States than any other country. The poll1 asked Americans, without prompting, to name “one country anywhere in the world” that they “consider to be America’s greatest enemy today.” The results showed that 31 percent of Americans say Iran is the greatest enemy, while 22 percent say Iraq, 15 percent say North Korea, and 10 percent say China. This has not always been the case. The following chapter will examine the tumultuous history of American–Iranian relations and the changes in portrayal of Iranians by the American film industry. Iran is a country that has a rich heritage that can be traced back to ancient Persia and is one of the fifteen states that comprise the “Cradle of Humanity.” Modern day Iran borders Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq and has coastlines on the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman. Beginning in the nineteenth century, Iran became a focal point of both Russian and British foreign policy and interests. It was these associations that led to the process of modernization with the final result being the Persian Constitutional Revolution at the start of the twentieth century. Iran has had a long and tumultuous relationship with the United States. In his new book The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and America (2004), Kenneth Pollack discusses this turbulent association in detail. Pollack believes that the resistance of the Islamic Republic of Iran has frustrated the past five American presidents, starting with Jimmy Carter in 1979, as one U.S. initiative after another has failed. The following section looks at some of the key moments in U.S.– Iranian relations starting with the 1953 CIA backed coup, through the Iranian Revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis that frustrated

52

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

President Carter, through the Iran–Contra affair that mired President Reagan until today with President Bush’s questions over Iran’s nuclear capability. For almost thirty years, U.S. policy toward Iran has consisted of containment, isolation, and the imposition of increasingly harsher sanctions. This policy is aimed at changing Iran’s behavior in three areas: the alleged state sponsorship of terrorism; pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; and the violent opposition to Israel. Many have questioned how it is possible for U.S. policy makers to defend and maintain a policy that does not accomplish its goals, alienates U.S. allies, fails most cost–benefit analyses, and is in opposition to crucial national interests. Despite two decades of isolation and sanctions, Iran has refused to be incorporated into the U.S.-led world order. 2 Relations officially started between Iran and the United States in the late 1800s when King Nasser-al-Din Shah sent an ambassador to Washington. Good relations continued from this time until in 1953, U.S. and British intelligence agencies removed the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossedeq from power in favor of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The basis for this overthrow, codenamed Operation Ajax, was the planned nationalization of Iran’s oil by Mossedeq and the impact this would have on British and U.S. interests. New York Times foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer, in his book All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (2004), reconstructs the CIA’s 1953 overthrow of Mossedeq. Kinzer proposes that Great Britain and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company were imperialist thugs who were intransigent in the face of Iran’s demands for a fairer share of oil profits and better conditions for workers. Kinzer contends that British Foreign Secretary Herbert Morrison exacerbated the tensions with his attitude that the challenge from Iran was, in Kinzer’s words, “a simple matter of ignorant natives rebelling against the forces of civilization.” Following the coup, the relationship between the United States and Iran normalized once again under the Shah and in fact was extremely close although still delicate. In Amin Saikal’s The Rise and Fall of the Shah (1980) the fact that the Shah needed to prove himself after the Mossedeq interlude and play down the fact he had been returned to his throne by the United States somewhat tainted the relationship. Saikal notes that it was not until the 1973–1974 oil crisis, however, where the Shah got every extra cent (and more) as it came in, that things started to “fall” for the Shah. Perhaps the most important point in this “biography” is the disastrous effect of the blank check reportedly given to

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

53

the Shah by President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger for the acquisition of the most sophisticated U.S. weaponry. The effect of this decision would haunt the United States for decades to come. Sepehr Zabih, author of The Mossadegh Era: Roots of the Iranian Revolution (1986), believes that the 1953 coup led in a substantial part to the 1979 Revolution and that the current relationship between the United States and Iran has its origin back in 1953. The Shah was strongly supported by the United States and the United Kingdom in his modernization of Iran but he was an autocratic, dictatorial ruler whose tactics included a brutal secret police force, SAVAK, who engaged in the torture of many Iranians opposed to the Shah and his decadent lifestyle. Growing opposition to the Shah led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah’s regime and the transformation from a pro–Western monarchy into an Islamic theocracy, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Ayatollah was particularly anti-American in his rhetoric vilifying the United States as the “Great Satan,” “enemies of Islam,” and a “nation of infidels.” Post-revolutionary Iran represented a completely new challenge to the United States. The 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah and the hostage crisis are collective traumas that linger in the American psyche, and the Iran–Contra scandal continues to preoccupy Congressional disputes regarding each branch’s prerogative. 3 The Presidency of Jimmy Carter saw American supremacy being challenged abroad whilst the American economy was in the grips of recession, the worst since the 1930s. In the lead up to the 1980 presidential campaign, the Iranian Revolution occurred followed by the Iranian Hostage Crisis and then the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Domestically, the levels of unemployment, inflation, and interest rates escalated and reached their highest levels since the end of World War II. As a counter measure to the rising OPEC oil prices, the Carter Administration freed domestic oil prices, which in turn helped to bring about the energy crisis. As the economy worsened and Carter failed to bring about tax reform, his Administration became increasingly unpopular. To try and halt the downward spiral of his approval rating, Carter gave a national address on television regarding what he felt was the American people’s crisis of confidence. Carter said: I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy. . . . I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might. The threat is nearly invisible in

54

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.4

Carter seemed unable to pull America out of its malaise, his speech was, on the whole, well received, but many Americans believed he lacked the leadership that was needed after the disappointments of the Nixon and Ford Administrations. William J. Daugherty, one of the U.S. hostages and CIA agent, in his book In the Shadow of the Ayatollah: A CIA Hostage in Iran (2001) recounts the 444 days he spent as a hostage, most of it in solitary confinement. Daugherty analyses U.S.–Iranian relations during the Cold War, when he believes that successive U.S. administrations focused on the Shah as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism and turned a blind eye to the brewing threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Although Daugherty often strongly disagrees with steps taken by President Carter, he does explain the policies that impelled the President to act as he did. Internationally, Carter promoted policies to place human rights center-stage. This was in direct opposition to the policies of the Nixon Administration, which tended to overlook human rights abuses if they were being committed by an ally of the United States. The fundamental problem with Carter’s human rights policy was that the Shah of Iran, a staunch U.S. ally, had a secret police force, SAVAK, which was renowned for their ruthless tactics and Carter had no choice but to overlook this flagrant abuse of human rights, which in turn made his human rights policy a mockery. Following the overthrow of the Shah by revolutionaries, Carter allowed the former monarch into the United States for medical treatment. In response to Carter’s support of the Shah, the revolutionaries stormed the American Embassy, took sixty-six American hostages and demanded that the Shah be returned to Iran for trial and execution. Carter’s approach to the crisis varied from staying inside the White House to embarrassingly unsuccessful rescue attempts. The hostage crisis was not resolved until Carter had left office. It is believed by many that this event cost President Jimmy Carter a second term in office and contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan; the first high point of Reagan’s Presidency was the release of the remaining American hostages in Tehran which occurred just minutes after his inauguration.5 However, it was the ongoing U.S. relations with Iran that were to shape Reagan’s Presidency from the Iran–Iraq War to the Iran–Contra affair.

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

55

Following on the heels of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the film Flying High II: The Sequel (1982) portrays Iranians, confusedly depicted as Arabs, as hostage takers. The basic plot is a rehash of the first Flying High (1980) where the hero, Ted Striker (played by Robert Hays) must overcome his own inadequacies, improbable accidents, and his ex-girlfriend (played by Julie Hagerty) in order to save, this time, a space shuttle from destruction. This comedy film is set in Houston “in the future” and shows U.S. hostages being led blindfolded into the airport by the “Arabs.” This implies that Iranians have moved on from taking U.S. citizens hostage in Iran to capturing U.S. citizens as hostages on U.S. soil. This film was released less than three years after the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran, and so it is not surprising that Iranians are seen as hostage takers. What should be surprising, but probably isn’t, is that Hollywood doesn’t see any difference between Iranians and Arabs and that the Hollywood stereotype lumps them together. There are no references to the “Arabs” during the film but at the end of the film when an airline employee summarizes the history of the world he states: First, the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came. But they got big and fat and they all died and turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes.

This film is a comedy but the portrayal of Arabs is anything but funny. As a film that has a target audience of teenage boys, its stereotypes will not be seen as that but more likely as true-to-life portrayal. It is films like this that portray anyone from the Middle East as being Arabs that cause this perception to become a reality for the majority of people. The Iran–Iraq War, known as the “Imposed War” in Iran, began on September 22, 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran and ended on August 20, 1988, with a ceasefire. Toward the end of the war, the United States engaged in a series of naval battles with Iranian forces, and the USS Vincennes shot down Iranian Air Flight 655 killing all 290 passengers on board.6 The U.S. government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat that had been in the same area as the civilian plane shortly beforehand.7 The U.S. government outwardly lent its support to Iraq by allowing the oil tankers heading to Iraqi ports to fly the American flag and thus be made safe from Iranian attack, which guaranteed Iraq’s revenue stream for the duration of the war. However, at the same time, the

56

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

American government had been secretly selling weapons to Iran, first indirectly through Israel and then directly. A thorough account of the events that led to the Iranian–Contra affair, the major blemish on the Reagan Presidency, can be found in George Lenczowski’s American Presidents and the Middle East (1990) including Reagan’s own actions. In summary though, the affair was the secret initiative in 1985 to send arms to Iran, through Israel, in exchange for Iranian pressure on Hezbollah to release U.S. hostages held in Lebanon. As time went on, the United States began to directly supply arms to Iran. The CIA would buy them from the Department of Defense and transfer them directly to Iran. The Iranians were being charged a higher price for the arms than the CIA had paid for them; that meant that the CIA was making a profit. The NSC used this profit to fund the Contra insurgents in Nicaragua. These arms sales had a dual benefit in that they appeased Iran, which had inf luence with the terrorist group holding Americans hostage in Lebanon as well as covertly funding a guerrilla war aimed at toppling Nicaragua’s pro-communist government, which was backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union. It was the discovery of this arrangement by the media and the public that led to the Iran–Contra affair, a major scandal for Reagan and his administration. Many people resigned, and some were jailed. This affair, more than anything else, signaled the return of the United States to the “real world” of deceit and lies by the government. Theodore Draper in his book Very Thin Line: The Iran–Contra Affairs (1991) reconstructs the Iran–Contra affair, showing how a handful of little-known officials took control of U.S. foreign policy. Draper examines the “very thin line” that separates the legitimate, from the illegitimate, exercise of power in government and examines the Washington connection that linked the arms sales to Khomeini’s Iran with the support of the antiSandinista forces in Nicaragua. When George H.W. Bush became president, one of the follow-on situations from the Reagan Administration he inherited was the aftermath of Iran–Contra scandal. It was during the Bush Administration that the trial of Oliver North was at its zenith. In May 1989, North was convicted, in July 1990 the U.S. Appeals court overturned the conviction, and in September 1991 all charges against North were dropped. Then in June 1992, former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was indicted over his role in the affair. After his four years as President, Bush ended all of this when, in the last controversial act in office, on Christmas Eve 1992, he granted pardons for six former Reagan Administration

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

57

officials who were implicated in the Iran–Contra affair. This included Weinberger whose personal diary contained references to Bush’s own endorsement of the secret arms shipments to Iran although Bush denied this and maintained that he only had peripheral knowledge of the arms for hostages deal. Many believe that these pardons were an effort by Bush to prevent a possible indictment of him at a later stage. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh stated: “the Iran–Contra cover-up, which has now continued for more than six years, has now been completed” and likened these pardons by Bush to the Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre.8 Bush maintained that he granted the pardons because Walsh was attempting to criminalize what was essentially a policy dispute between the executive and legislative branches. *

*

*

Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer 9 and holds 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and has the world’s second largest natural gas reserves. Iran is currently endeavoring to diversify by investing oil revenues in other areas, including petrochemicals, and is trying to attract billions of dollars worth of foreign investment by creating a more positive investment climate by reduced restrictions and duties on imports and creating free-trade zones. Commercial relations between the United States and Iran are restricted by U.S. sanctions and consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food and medical products and U.S. purchases of carpets and food. The U.S. government prohibits most trade with Iran, including that involving oil. During his State of the Union Address in 1980, President Jimmy Carter declared that, . . . an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force . . . 10

This dramatic declaration became known as the Carter Doctrine and was precipitated by the tumultuous events in Iran and also the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The one overarching goal of U.S. foreign policy after World War II was, arguably, the containment of Soviet communism. However, many argue that the growing relationship between Russia and Iran following the collapse of the Soviet Union has added

58

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

to the strain in the relationship between Iran and the United States.11 Perhaps, it is in part a case of L. Carl Brown’s notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but perhaps it has a greater foundation than just being united by a common enemy. During the Cold War period, Iran generally pursued a policy of nonalignment. However, Mikhail Gorbachev’s new policy initiatives led to an agreement between the Soviet Union and Iran to conduct joint oil exploration of the Caspian Sea. This in turn led to the Soviet Union favoring Iran in the continuing Iran–Iraq War whereas Moscow had previously favored Iraq. With the end of the Iran–Iraq War in 1988 and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, relations continued to improve between the two countries, which was cemented by the Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze’s visit to Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini, who had formerly denounced the Soviet Union as one of the “foreign devils” received Shevardnadze. The Soviet Union signed a number of major agreements with Iran to include the sale of arms, and they issued a joint communiqué stating that they had agreed to collaborate on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.12 Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia continued to build on its established relationship with Iran. President Rafsanjani was extremely careful not to alienate Moscow while the Soviet Union was disintegrating and kept their economic ties at the forefront. Even the December 1994 and August 1999 Russian invasions of Chechnya did not harm the relationship. In 2003, Russia was the second largest arms supplier in the world after the United States, at nearly $4 billion in yearly sales.13 Much of this is attributed to arms-sales to Iran. Russia has also been supplying Iran with the technical capability to build a nuclear reactor and is one of Iran’s staunchest advocates in its quest to pursue such a course.14 It is this growing relationship that worries the United States, especially as Russia has the capability to arm Iran conventionally and provide it with not just nuclear technology but nuclear weapons technology. These sort of background events still found their way into Hollywood film, for example, in the film Miracle (2004), the story of Herb Brooks, the coach of the U.S. Ice Hockey team who took a disorderly group of college kids and pitted them against the legendary juggernaut from the Soviet Union at the 1980 Olympic Games. Despite the long odds, Team USA carried the pride of a nation, yearning for a distraction from world events, and won. The movie begins with a montage of scenes from the period in the years leading up to the selection of the Olympic hockey team in the

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

59

summer of 1979. The montage shows scenes of the Cold War, the oil shortage, and long gasoline lines, disgraced President Nixon, the embattled President Carter, Russians invading Afghanistan. *

*

*

According to the U.S. State Department in 1988, “Iran is currently one of the world’s most active states in supporting international terrorism and subversion against other countries.”15 There were several “terrorist” groups affiliated with Iran during this period. There was Hezbollah (Party of God), Islamic Jihad (Holy War), and Dawa (The Call) who operated mostly from Lebanon.16 One notable incident occurred in Kuwait in December 1983, when a truck bomb attack was carried out against the U.S. Embassy. Dawa claimed responsibility for the act. However, after the imprisonment of the bombers, a spate of assassinations, kidnappings, and hijackings were carried out in retaliation.17 President George W. Bush has designated Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” and the U.S. State Department refers to Iran as the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” According to the State Department, Iran provides funding, weapons, and training to terrorist groups based in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia and funds Islamic terrorist groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Kurdistan Workers Party. Iran purportedly has terrorist links with Syria, another Rogue State, and was allegedly involved with Hezbollah’s attempt to smuggle arms to the Palestinian Authority in January 2002. According to Washington, the continuing efforts of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East as well as elsewhere.18 The United States believes that Iran is attempting to develop the capability to produce various types of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and has turned to Russia, China, and North Korea to acquire the technology and expertise to produce these weapons. Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are especially troubling to the United States due to Iran’s alleged support of terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation. In March 2005, U.S. Ambassador Jackie Wolcott Sanders, who was the Special Representative of the President for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, addressed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on the Nuclear Verification process in relation to Iran. During this speech,19 Ambassador Sanders suggested

60

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program and that if this was indeed the case, the United States would have to bring the matter before the United Nations Security Council, which had the power to force Iran to comply with IAEA directives. The 2003 CIA report: Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions—January 1 through June 30, 2003, 20 states that Iran is continuing to . . . vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce WMD-nuclear, chemical, and biological- and their delivery systems as well as ACW. To this end, Iran continued to seek foreign materials, training, equipment, and know-how. During the reporting period, Iran still focused particularly on entities in Russia, China, North Korea, and Europe.

The report outlined the reasons why the United States believes that Iran is in violation of its obligations under Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). On May 18, 2006, Stephen G. Rademaker, Acting Assistant Secretary, International Security and Nonproliferation spoke at the Conference on Disarmament being held in Geneva, Switzerland. Rademaker stated that, Iran was in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations due to its many failures and breaches. This determination was based on a threeyear long investigation by the IAEA of previously undeclared nuclear activities in Iran extending back over a period of 18 years. 21

Rademaker went on to say that, Iran was formally reported to the Security Council in February of this year. On March 29th, the Security Council, acting by consensus, adopted a presidential statement calling on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment-related activities, cooperate fully with the IAEA’s ongoing investigations, and enter into good faith negotiations on measures to restore international confidence in Iran’s nuclear intentions. Iran’s response to this statement was to announce two weeks later that it had met with initial success in uranium enrichment and was planning to expand rapidly the scale of its enrichment work. Lest this response be misunderstood, Iran also rejected repeated requests for transparency and cooperation.

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

61

The United States expects the Security Council to fulfill its responsibility under the UN Charter to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program, and it will be a defeat for effective multilateralism should the Council fail to live up to this responsibility. 22

The United States still has numerous issues with Iranian policy, more than 25 years after the Revolution. The United States alleges that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and that it is heavily involved in international terrorism. Iran’s opposition to the Middle East peace process is another source of contention as is Iran’s unpleasant human rights record. The United States also takes issue with Iranians’ alleged threats and subversive activities against its neighbors. The feelings of distrust and dislike are mutual. Iran detests U.S. support for Israel and Israel’s suppression of Palestinian demands for a viable state as well as the refusal of the Unites States to pressure Israel into giving up its nuclear weapons. Iran blames the United States for assisting Iraq in developing chemical weapons that were used against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War as well as the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 during the War. Iran also believes that the United States should be held accountable for the killing by American soldiers of thousands of Iraqi civilians and for the appalling U.S. human rights violations during the 2003 Iraqi invasion as demonstrated at Abu Ghraib. At the time of publishing of this book, the relations between the United States and Iran over Iran’s Nuclear Program are becoming increasingly strained and are top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. *

*

*

In the period before the 1979 Revolution, Iran and Iranians had a very different image in Hollywood film than after the Revolution. Films up until 1979 had tended to depict people from Iran as oil rich sheikhs with an occasional hankering for Western women. After the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran in 1979, films depicting people from Iran started to shift away from the oil focus and move more toward the idea of Iranians being hostage takers and terrorists. Although the rich oil sheikhs were seen as a danger to unsuspecting women, and occasionally the economy, the hostage-taking terrorists were seen as a danger to everyone. One of the first Hollywood films to ever feature a Persian (Iranian) in a main role was Oklahoma in 1955. The plot is about a couple of young

62

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

cowboys who win the hearts of their sweethearts, in the Oklahoma territory at the turn of the century, despite the interference of an evil ranch hand and a roaming peddler. Eddie Albert who is not Persian at all and in fact is a World War II hero who was decorated by the United States, played the role of the peddler, Ali Hakim from Persia. Oklahoma! won two Academy Awards in 1956 and was nominated for two others. It is considered a classic musical and is still popular fifty years later. Some of the most memorable scenes and quotes come from the Persian character Ali Hakim. These are memorable perhaps because they make fun of and mock Hakim. When asked why he was engaged to Ado Annie, Hakim states “I wanted to marry her when I saw the moonlight shining on the barrel of her father’s shotgun.” When Ado Annie’s American beau, Will Parker, finds out that Hakim is engaged to his girl, he declares: “I don’t know what to make of you! You’re too purty to be a skunk! Too thin to be a snake! Too little to be a man, and too big to be a mouse! I reckon you’re a rat!” Hakim merely replies, “That’s logical.” In a discussion between Ado Annie, her father (Carnes), and Ali Hakim, the following is what transpires: Ado Annie: He called me his Persian kitten! Carnes: what’d you call her that for? Ali Hakim: Ohh - I don’t remember . . . Ado Annie Carnes: I do! He said I’s like a Persian kitten cause they is the cats with the soft round tails! Carnes: [cocking his gun] That’s enough. In this country that better be a proposal of marriage.

Then when Ali Hakim, Ado Annie, and Will Parker are discussing marriage, this is what is revealed: Ali Hakim: It’s a wonderful thing to be married. I got a brother in Persia got six wives. Ado Annie: Six wives all at once? Will Parker: Why, sure. That’s the way they do in them countries. Ali Hakim: Not always; I got a brother in Persia only got one wife. He’s a bachelor.

Into the Night (1985) is a film directed by John Landis 23 and it is filled with countless cameo appearances. Among the directors who appear in the film are David Cronenberg 24, Colin Higgins, Daniel Petrie, Paul Mazursky25, Paul Bartel 26 , Don Siegel, Jim Henson, Amy Heckerling,

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

63

Roger Vadim, Lawrence Kasdan, Jonathan Demme, Carl Gottlieb, and Landis himself. Other cameos in the film include actors Dan Aykroyd, Vera Miles, Clu Gulager, and Irene Papas, cinematographer Robert Paynter, publicist Saul Kahan, car dealer Cal Worthington, rock star David Bowie, writer Waldo Salt, computer software expert Hadi Sadjadi, body-builder Jake Steinfeld, cartoonist Bruce McGill, special effects makeup artist Rick Baker, country singer Carl Perkins, assistant director David Sosna, second assistant cameraman Christopher George, sound mixer William B. Kaplan, and makeup man Wes Dawn. Jeff Goldblum plays Ed Okin who is an aerospace engineer who is unhappily married, unhappily employed, depressed, restless, and sleepless. When he finds out his wife is having an affair, he gets up in the middle of the night and drives his car to Los Angeles airport planning to f ly off into the night. Michelle Pfeiffer lands on the hood of his car, pursued by four murderous Iranians. Goldblum saves her life and gets caught in an intrigue involving stolen jewels, black-market con games and an international network of thieves with the Iranian villains chasing him around in a Mercedes, looking like the Four Stooges. Into the Night makes some progress by at least defining Iranians as Persians rather than Arabs, but that is where the progress stops. The Iranians stab a man and put him in the boot of their Mercedes Benz, try to assault the American heroine, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, fondle women’s breasts, pistol-whip another man, stab each other, shoot a dog, and commit suicide amongst other random acts of trashing of hotels and boats. The film does nothing but portray Iranians as money hungry animals who are inhumane and deserving of death. Not Without My Daughter (1991) has had a significant impact on the image that people in the West have about Iran perhaps more than any number of news items combined. Betty Mahmoody continues to champion the cause of women’s rights in the United States. For instance, in 2001, her story was mentioned at a U.S. Congressional hearing on the situation of American women married to Saudi men and living in Saudi Arabia. This film is based on the book of the same name by Betty Mahmoody and is autobiographical. Mahmoody tells the story of her marriage to Moody, who is an Iranian doctor living in America and the father of her child Mahtob. The basic plot is that Moody wants to visit his homeland, Iran, and so the family decide to go there on holidays. Betty is reluctant as she feels that Iran is not a pleasant place, particularly if you are American and female. Upon arrival in Iran, Moody announces that they will be staying in Iran. The film then concentrates on Betty’s new

64

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

life in Iran and her eventual escape. The tagline from the film sums it up very well: In 1984, Betty Mahmoody’s husband took his wife and daughter to meet his family in Iran. He swore they would be safe. They would be happy. They would be free to leave. He lied.

The movie is in the vein of Kramer vs Kramer (1979) about a custody battle, but this time it is an international custody battle. It is understandable that when a couple from different countries break up, they would want their child to live with them and grow up in the country and culture in which they themselves were raised. Perhaps it is only natural that each parent feels that the way in which he or she was raised is better for his or her child. In this film, the culture clash is between the United States and Iran. Set in 1984, the Ayatollah Khomeini is still very much the leader of Iran, and Iran has been in the midst of the Iran–Iraq war for four years, and Iran was already quite isolated from much of the world at this time. Moody, who is an Iranian-born doctor practicing in the United States, is distressed at the changes in his homeland, especially the breakdown of the education system and the resulting shortage of doctors. The shock of this degradation of his country and the pressure of his family, leads to his becoming a fundamentalist Muslim. Moody then appears to undergo a personality transformation where he demands that Betty dress and behave like how he thinks a good Muslim wife should behave and wants their daughter to be raised to do the same. He becomes physically abusive to Betty. Moody also states that if Betty wants to return to America, it is fine with him, but Mahtob will remain with him in Iran. The film depicts Moody’s personality transformation from a nice guy to a wife abuser as a direct result of his “re-emergence” in Islam once he is back in the Middle East. This film also leaves the audience with a moral to the story: even nice, educated people that live in the West who are Muslims can “turn” once they return to the Middle East and that Islam is the cause of their violent and oppressive nature. Sally Field who is “America’s Sweetheart” and the archetypical “good girl” plays Betty. She generates sympathy and empathy from the audience and plays the “damsel in distress” role very well. The choice of Sally Field as the heroine gave this movie more credence with the audience as she is seen as having integrity and honor when it comes to her choice of role. Alfred Molina, who portrays Moody, is a British actor of Spanish

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

65

and Italian origins. Molina is a rather large, ungainly looking character actor and bears absolutely no resemblance to the short, balding, bespectacled man on which his character is based. Virtually all of the other characters in the movie are Iranian. Some are good. Most are bad. The people who help Betty escape are “the good” and the people who Betty is escaping from, namely Moody and his family, are “the bad.” This film grossed over US$14.7 million and was one of the most talked about and inf luential films of 1991. Many critics of this film, and the book, contend that this movie is one-sided and unfair to Moody and Iranians in general. That said, the film is Betty’s story, told solely from her point of view. As anyone caught in a bitter custody battle will attest, the ex-husband becomes “evil” and “bad” as do his or her family. It is not necessarily lying or exaggeration but merely their point of view clouded by the custody dispute. Although the factual basis of this book and film is widely disputed, many people believe that everything that is portrayed is not just possible but true and likely to occur to any Western woman who is “unfortunate” enough to marry a Muslim. The film doesn’t actually malign the Iranian people but it does imply, and sometimes says it explicitly, that the Iranian culture is inferior to the West. This film is also riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations about Iran and Iranians. Some interesting inaccuracies to note include: Tehran does not have sheep roaming its streets, and it has not since about 1890. The filmmakers chose a village in rural Israel to film this movie and represent Tehran. Perhaps the producers wanted to portray Iran as a backward country full of uncultured peasants living in mud houses. Further, almost no one speaks actual Farsi in this film, thus the simplest accuracy is missing. Another rather bizarre invention by the film (and the book) is when Moody tells Betty that Iranians have to take showers after intercourse. Although it is true that Iranian women must wear hijab, it is a cultural and religious based custom that, despite what Western feminists say about human rights, is a choice and not a form of oppression. The chadors and other headpieces are a part of Islamic culture and are often worn as a sign of respect. The film, however, portrays women being forced to wear a burka, which is just erroneous. What is more interesting is that in this film Iranian women are portrayed as the “boss” of the household. In fact, when it comes to household issues, the woman is usually dominant in Iranian culture, and Iranian women are much stronger and more empowered than in most other countries in the world, but this point is not made properly.

66

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Not Without My Daughter was made in 1991, and it is a film that raises patriotism and anti-Muslim sentiment regardless. It does not distinguish the difference between countries of the Middle East or from the various sects of Islam. Not Without My Daughter does not treat its Muslim characters impartially. It is vitriolic and spiteful, and if such a movie were to be made in America about any other ethnic group, it would be denounced as racist and prejudiced. Sayed Bozorg Mahmoody (Moody’s real name) tells his version of the events in new documentary, Without My Daughter (2002). The hourand-a-half documentary by Alexis Kouros and Kari Tervo tells about Mahmoody’s vain attempts to make contact with his daughter who was kidnapped and taken to America. Following are some of the “facts” that Not Without My Daughter misrepresents as picked up from Without My Daughter. First, Moody speaks English slowly but well. Not surprising since he went through medical school in the United States. This quiet 65-year-old gentleman does not seem to be the type who would argue violently, but he does comment on accusations made against him when asked. Betty claimed that Moody beat both her and Mahtob. “That is not true,” Moody says. In the new film, those who knew him and Betty in Tehran insist that there was never any sign of anything of the kind. Betty claimed that Moody would lock her and her daughter in their house. “Not true,” Moody says. In his film, their friends confirm that Betty moved about freely. Betty says that fearing for their lives, she fled to freedom with her daughter Mahtob across the mountains of Western Iran. The new film suggests that the tale of heroism about the flight across the mountains is merely a tale reminiscent of the Sound of Music (1965). Moody realized in a state of shock that he had been left in Tehran without his family. There was no going back to America and their home in Michigan after Betty had told her story. Both films appeal to the emotions. Both tell stories that are powerful and credible. Without My Daughter is a painstakingly produced documentary, while Not Without My Daughter is a drama, which in true Hollywood style is “based on” a true story, which means that events are altered, as the narrative requires. On the other hand, the documentary is by no means the absolute truth about the story of one family. The new film also has its ideological dimension, which it offers in response to the American pathos about freedom that permeated the first movie. Whereas the first Hollywood film shows the wife as good and the husband as evil, the story now shows the man as victim and the woman as

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

67

being selfish and money-grubbing. Perhaps the only thing that is different is that the roles of good and evil have changed places in the new movie. Surprisingly, when looking at the credits of the film, there is not a single Iranian in the main cast. Many Iranian expatriates, including those who are against the Islamic regime in Tehran, view this film as purely racist. It has united all Iranians of all political and religious ideologies: Pro-Islamic, anti-Islamic, pro-Shah, anti-Shah, communist, capitalist, socialist, national socialist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Baha’i. All religious and political divisions of Iranians can be united by the racism that this film portrays against them. At the time its events take place, and at the time the film was made, Iran was the enemy and Iraq was the ally. It is in keeping with the long, sad human history of portraying enemies as godless, inhuman devils. Based on the novel by Andre Dubus II, The House of Sand and Fog (2003) is beautifully shot and well-directed by Vadim Perelman, and was nominated for three Academy Awards in 2004: Best Actor in a Leading Role (Ben Kingsley), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Shohreh Aghdashloo), and Best Music-Original Score (James Horner). The plot follows Massoud Amir Behrani (Ben Kingsley), who was an Iranian Colonel under the Shah and then an immigrant to America. Behrani has spent most of his savings trying to enhance his daughter’s chances of a good marriage, and he has been reduced to being a laborer, but he sees an opportunity to change his family’s fortunes around, and once his daughter is married, he spends the remaining funds on a house at an auction in the hope of making a profit to be able to fund his son’s university studies. Behrani unwittingly puts himself and his family in the middle of a legal tussle with the house’s former owner, Kathy Nicolo (Jennifer Connelly). Kathy is an emotionally unstable recovering alcoholic who is evicted from the house she inherited from her father when she is mistakenly charged for unpaid taxes. Kathy becomes distraught and itinerant, moving from a motel to her car, blaming the government, and eventually Behrani for her misfortune. Behrani promptly makes alterations that will increase the value of the residence and puts up a “For Sale by Owner” sign out front, asking quadruple the price he paid for the property. Kathy realizes that if Behrani is successful, she’ll lose her father’s house forever and seeks the aid of Lester (Ron Eldard), a morally bankrupt police officer who tries to force the family leave the place. Both of these people desperately need the house. Both have a moral claim to it. Neither can afford to let go of it. This is a serious, somber, well-made film, and one of those rare movies that does not take sides,

68

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

and the audience feels sympathy all the way through for everyone in it. The characters sometimes do bad things, but the movie understands them and their f laws. An interesting exchange to note is that between Behrani and his wife, Esmail: Esmail: Why did that man say we would be deported? Behrani: I do not know. But we are American citizens. We own this house. They can do nothing to us now. Esmail: I feel bad for that lady, bawbaw-jahn. Behrani: The woman’s house was taken from her because she did not pay her taxes. That happens when one is not responsible. Esmail: [interjects in Persian] Behrani: Do you understand? Do not feel bad. Americans they do not deserve what they have. They have the eyes of small children who are forever looking for the next source of distraction, entertainment, sweet taste in the mouth. We are not like them. We know rich opportunities when we see them and do not throw away God’s blessing.

*

*

*

Iran was the first Rogue State to have emerged on the U.S. radar. Events such as the 1953 CIA-led Coup were perhaps the seeds that sowed the 1979 Revolution whirlwind and led to the ensuing hostage crisis, the Iran–Contra affair, and perhaps even the rise of Saddam Hussein as the U.S.-backed strongman of the Gulf. What is both surprising and interesting is that none of this conf lict and angst has translated into the portrayal of Iran in Hollywood film. The hypothesis of this book, which is that there is a significant correlation between the portrayal of Rogue States in Hollywood film and their place in U.S. foreign policy at the time, is thus not found to be true in the case of Iran. The films examined include Oklahoma! (1955), Flying High II: The Sequel (1982), Into the Night (1985), Not Without My Daughter (1991), and The House of Sand and Fog (2003). These films are the only ones that mention Iran or Persia by name. Sadly, none of these films are able to meet the criteria that this book would like to have employed in that they are not “Political Films” that gain the legitimacy for U.S. policy statements by employing the White House, the President, State Department, or Department of Defense as characters or a fig-leaf for their political statements. They are nonetheless extremely significant

The Islamic Republic of Iran

●

69

and inf luential films that manipulate the perceptions and beliefs about Iran in the West. These films also range in genre from a musical, to comedy, to being based on a true story. Although it would have been expected that pre1979 more films would have focused on the oil-rich sheikhs that are commonly found in film, none of the films in this genre mentions Iran or Iranians by name! Mostly the Sheikhs portrayed in these films are generic “Arabs” or “Middle Easterners.” However, not all of the films portray Iranians as “baddies” or just as one-dimensional caricatures. The House of Sand and Fog does a particularly good job of humanizing its Iranian characters and at times juxtaposing them to the more unpleasant American characters. What is perhaps the most interesting finding in this study of Iran is that none of the major U.S. foreign policy initiatives have been turned into films. It is widely believed that the United States has a habit of glorifying its forays into the world; just note the plethora of films about World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam, and Operation Desert Storm. The absence of films about Iran begs the question: why? One possible answer is that the United States is yet to “win” in Iran or have a “win” against Iran. Yes, the United States managed to overthrow Mossedeq in 1953 and reinstate the Shah but that did not last. Yes, the United States managed to get back its hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran but only after 444 days, several botched rescue attempts, and a significant slap across the face from Iran. Other than that, the United States has been nothing but humiliated by Iran, and failed by its foreign policy toward Iran. The Islamic Republic is still going strong with no signs of “repentance” that the United States would like to see. Iran still holds its annual “Death to America Day” public holiday and vilifies the “Great Satan” at every opportunity. Iran is still vehemently strong in its antiIsrael rhetoric, and despite being under U.S. sanctions, still trades with the rest of the world quite happily. The United States, on the other hand, has suffered the embarrassment of the Iran–Contra affair that bogged down two U.S. presidents for several years. With all that in mind, it is not surprising the United States and Hollywood do not want to highlight the state of U.S.–Iranian relations in film. Any films about key historical events such as the 1979 Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis would only show the United States in an awful light. Thus, only films that can “joke” about Iranian oil or are based on personal experiences of individuals in Iran can be told without ref lecting the shortcomings of the United States and Washington.

70

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The Islamic Republic of Iran is considered a Rogue State by the United States because it is independent and not an ally of the United States. Despite Washington’s rhetoric and accusations of supporting terrorism and having nuclear ambitions, the United States is aware that Iran is a thorn in the side of U.S. supremacy and a painful reminder that not all countries are afraid of going up against the United States. The following chapter will look at another Rogue State to emerge out of the ruins of the Cold War following the collapse of the Soviet Union: Cuba.

CHAPTER 4

The Republic of Cuba

C

uba’s position in U.S. foreign policy is unique as the sole remaining enemy of the United States from the Cold War era. Surveys show that the negative feelings that Americans have toward Cuba have barely changed in the past forty years. When Americans today are surveyed about Cuba their response is the same as it has been for over forty years—negative. The new century has done little to change the opinion of Americans about Cuba, and survey data is evidence of the long-standing negative feelings Americans have about their island neighbor. In Figure 4.1,1 a clear pattern can be seen. When asked the question: “Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of Cuba very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?” the responses are as shown: with less than 30 percent of Americans having favorable opinion of Cuba and more than 60 percent having an unfavorable opinion of Cuba. Cuba is the largest island in the Caribbean. The main island is the world’s sixteenth largest island. Europeans first visited Cuba when explorer Christopher Columbus landed on the island in 1492. This was followed by the Spanish invasion in 1511. Cuba was granted independence from Spain in 1902, but the Platt Amendment restricted this independence. This amendment gave the United States a major influence in Cuban affairs and required Cuba to give the United States a lease for Guantánamo Bay. Although the Platt Amendment was revoked in 1934, the lease of Guantánamo Bay was extended. In 1953, Fidel Castro was exiled to Mexico following an attack on the Moncada Barracks. Castro returned to Cuba in November 1956 and with the help of popular dissatisfaction managed to overthrow President Batista. Castro then established a one-party socialist state. The new revolutionary government implemented successive “land

% of respondents

72

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1996

1999

2001

2002

All Unfavorable

2003

2004

2005

All Favorable

Figure 4.1 American opinion of Cuba

reforms” and eventually confiscated the majority of private property. Much of the private property in Cuba was owned by U.S. citizens and U.S. companies and as a result U.S.-Cuban relations rapidly deteriorated. The United States did, however, recognize the new government of Fidel Castro and refused to host a “government in exile” headed by anti-Castro Cubans. Castro declared himself a Communist in 1961 and explained that he was trying to build socialism in Cuba by focusing on free health care and education for all. Cuba thus began close political and economic relations with the Soviet Union. This new relationship between the Soviet Union and Cuba caused the United States to enact legislation intended to isolate Cuba economically. In April 1961, the United States planned and funded the landing by armed Cuban expatriates in Cuba in an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government. Tension between the United States and Cuba had increased following Castro’s revolution and Cuba’s subsequent endorsement of Communism. Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations had decided that Cuba’s shift toward the Soviet Union could not be endured, and thus the United States moved to overthrow Castro. Plans for the invasion began when the CIA, during the Eisenhower Administration, started recruiting and training Cuban exiles. In the lead up to the invasion, diplomatic relations were severed with Cuba in January 1961, and the CIA was confident that it was capable of overthrowing Castro, having previously overthrown Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossedeq in 1953 and Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954. However, the invasion failed

The Republic of Cuba

●

73

badly and proved to be an international humiliation for the Kennedy Administration and resulted in the resignations of CIA Director Allen Dulles, the CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and CIA Deputy Director of Operations Richard Bissell. The Cuban Project consisted of several CIA covert operations and plans. Initiated by President John F. Kennedy, following the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Project authorized forceful covert assault on Communism in Cuba with the overarching goal being the overthrow of Fidel Castro and his Communist regime. The United States believed that the Communist controls inside Cuba were brutal and that the repressive measures of the government had resulted in an antiregime atmosphere among the Cuban people that made any opposition program a distinct possibility. The United States designed a covert plan to stimulate the growing antiregime spirit to provoke an overthrow of the government and assassination attempts on Castro. The program included political, psychological, military, sabotage, and intelligence operations as well as assassination attempts on key political leaders. This Project played a significant part in the events leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis; 2 however, overall the Project was not successful, and perhaps if anything the covert plan helped strengthen Fidel Castro’s popularity in Cuba.3 After the collapse of its relations with the United States, following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba sought increased Soviet support. This Soviet-Cuban alliance against the United States culminated in the thirty-eight-day Cuban Missile Crisis, which was a tense confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States over the Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. It is generally regarded as the moment when the Cold War was closest to becoming a nuclear war, which could have resulted in World War III. The origins of the crisis began in 1961 when the United States deployed fifteen Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) in Turkey, which directly threatened cities in the western sections of the Soviet Union. President John F. Kennedy regarded these missiles as being of questionable strategic value as a nuclear submarine was capable of providing the same cover with both stealth and superior firepower.4 Soviet strategists realized that some nuclear equality could be efficiently reached by placing missiles in Cuba. Soviet MRBMs on Cuban soil, with a range of 2,000 km could threaten Washington DC and around half of the United States. In addition, the U.S. radar warning system was oriented toward the USSR and would provide little warning of a launch from Cuba.

74

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had devised the above deployment plan in May 1962, and by late July, over sixty Soviet ships were en route to Cuba, some of them carrying military material. John McCone, director of the CIA, advised President Kennedy that some of the ships were probably carrying missiles. During a meeting between President John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Dean Rusk, and Robert McNamara, it was decided that the Soviets would not try such a brazen thing. The United States received repeated claims from Soviet diplomats that there were no missiles in Cuba, nor any plans to place any, and that the Soviets were not interested in starting an international drama that might impact the U.S. elections in November. On October 16, Kennedy was given photographs from U-2 f lights over Cuba that showed four missile sites were operational. Initially, the U.S. government kept the information secret, telling only the fourteen key officials of the executive committee.5 The United Kingdom was not informed until the evening of October 21. President Kennedy, in a televised address on October 22 announced the discovery of the installations and proclaimed that any nuclear missile attack from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union and would be responded to accordingly. He also placed a naval blockade on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of military weapons from arriving there. The word “quarantine” was used rather than “blockade” for reasons of international law (the blockade took place in international waters) and in keeping with the 1937 Quarantine Speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt. 6 Kennedy claimed that a “blockade” is an act of war (and was correct) and war had not been declared between America and Cuba. When Kennedy openly publicized the crisis, the entire world was put in a state of terror. People began talking and worrying openly about nuclear Armageddon, and drills for such an emergency happened almost daily in many cities. At an emergency session of the UN Security Council on October 25, 1962, U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson attempted to force an answer from Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin as to the existence of the weapons, famously demanding, “Don’t wait for the translation!” Upon Zorin’s refusal, Stevenson produced photographs taken by U.S. surveillance of aircraft showing the missile installations in Cuba. Khrushchev sent letters to Kennedy on October 23 and 24 claiming the deterrent nature of the missiles in Cuba and the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union; however, the Soviets had delivered two different deals to the U.S. government. On October 26 they offered to

The Republic of Cuba

●

75

withdraw the missiles in return for a U.S. guarantee not to invade Cuba or support any invasion. The second deal was broadcast on public radio on October 27, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in addition to the demands of October 26. The crisis peaked on October 27, when a U-2 was shot down over Cuba and another U-2 f light over Russia was almost intercepted. At the same time, Soviet merchant ships were nearing the quarantine zone. The compromise satisfied no one, though it was a particularly sharp diplomatic embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union, who were seen as backing down from a situation that they had created, whilst, if played well, it could have looked like just the opposite; the USSR gallantly saving the world from nuclear holocaust by not insisting on restoring the nuclear equilibrium. Khrushchev’s fall from power a few years later can be partially linked to Politburo embarrassment at both Khrushchev’s eventual concessions to the United States and his ineptitude in precipitating the crisis in the first place. U.S. military commanders were not happy with the result either. General LeMay told the President that it was “the greatest defeat in our history” and that the United States should invade immediately. Cuba felt that it had been betrayed by the Soviets, whom they had trusted, given that the decisions on putting an end to the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. In October 2002, McNamara and Schlesinger joined a group of other dignitaries in a “reunion” with Castro in Cuba to continue to release classified documents and further study the crisis. It was during the first meeting that Secretary McNamara first discovered that Cuba had many more missiles than initially expected. It was also revealed that Castro and Khruschev were perfectly willing to start a nuclear war over the crisis. Robert F. Kennedy in his book, Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1968), brings a unique perspective to the decisionmaking process of the U.S. government at the highest level when on the brink of nuclear holocaust. Kennedy describes what happens to even the most competent and trusted men under stress. In a clear and simple way, he describes the personalities involved in the crisis, with particular attention to the actions and attitudes of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. He describes the daily, even hourly, exchanges between the Russian and American representatives. It is on this book that the film Thirteen Days (2000) is largely based. The film Thirteen Days is set during the two-week Cuban missile crisis in October of 1962, and it centers on how President John F. Kennedy,

76

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and others handled the explosive situation. It starts in October 1962, when U-2 surveillance photos reveal that the Soviet Union is in the process of placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. These weapons have the capability of wiping out most of the Eastern and Southern United States in minutes if they become operational. President Kennedy and his advisors must come up with a plan of action against the Soviets. Kennedy is determined to show that he is strong enough to stand up to the threat, and the Pentagon advises U.S. military strikes against Cuba, which could lead the way to another U.S. invasion of the island. Kennedy is reluctant to follow through, because a U.S. invasion could cause the Soviets to retaliate in Europe. A nuclear showdown appears to be almost inevitable. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara comes up with a different plan, a naval blockade of Cuba, to keep new missiles from reaching the country. When the Russians ignore the blockade and try to run it, things quickly go from bad to worse. Roger Donaldson directs Thirteen Days, and being based on the book by Kennedy, it is regarded as being factual and a true account of events. However, as with many Hollywood films, the truth is not allowed to get in the way of a good story. The film includes many small and careless errors that are not particularly harmful such as a stock shot of a missile launch is labeled “Atlas Missile Launch,” when really it is a Titan ICBM.7 What is a significant factual error in the film is Khrushchev’s acceptance of peace contains the line “you and I should not now pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the harder you and I pull, the tighter the knot will become . . . .” The quote goes on at some length and can be seen in the message coming in over the Teletype. The problem with this is that the quote appeared in Khrushchev’s first letter, dated October 26, 1962, in which he proposed the terms of peace. It did not appear in his October 27, 1962 acceptance of the American conciliation terms. This somewhat skews the resolution of the crisis to be seen as an American victory over the Soviets rather than a mutual backdown. The tagline of the film is: “You’ll Never Believe How Close We Came,” and this encapsulates the entire mood of the film as well as adding to the drama of it. There are some very telling moments in the film about U.S. foreign policy at the time in relation to both the U.S. position in the world and the fear of Communism. One such exchange occurs between Robert Kennedy and Kenny O’Donnell, Special Assistant to the President: Robert Kennedy: By the way, China invaded India today. Kenny O’Donnell: You’re kidding, aren’t you?

The Republic of Cuba

●

77

Robert Kennedy: Yeah, I wish I were. Galbraith is handling it in New Delhi. Makes you wonder what’s coming next. Kenny O’Donnell: Geez. What is it about the free world that pisses the rest of the world off? Robert Kennedy: I don’t know. We have Tupperware parties.

In another scene, Robert Kennedy is talking about an invasion and says: You’re talking a sneak attack. How will that make us look? A big country blasting a little country to the Stone Age.

Octopus (2000) is set in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis and tells the story of a Russian submarine that is sunk while en route to Havana. As the sub goes down, the hold is ruptured and barrels full of some mysterious but toxic substance tumble out. Thirty-eight years later, an American nuclear submarine is transporting a captured terrorist to the United States. The terrorist’s henchmen, however, are planning to hijack the sub and rescue their leader. Then a huge mutated octopus attacks the sub. Although this film is a horror/science-fiction film, it makes it very clear that the mutation of the sea creature is due to the Russian and Cuban actions during the Missile Crisis! Although the United States never openly threatened Cuba again, it did engage in absurdly elaborate covert activities to assassinate Castro, including the notorious attack on Cubana Flight 455 that is attributed, but never proven, to have been carried out by CIA funded Castro opponents. Cubana Flight 455 was a Cubana de Aviación flight departing from Barbados, via Trinidad, to Cuba. On October 6, 1976, two time bombs exploded, killing all 73 people on board in the most deadly act of airline terrorism in the Western hemisphere until September 11, 2001. Evidence implicated several CIA-linked anti-Castro Cuban exiles and members of the Venezuelan secret police DISIP. Cuba accused the U.S. government of being an accomplice to the attack. CIA documents released in 2005 indicate that the agency had prior knowledge that the bombing was going to take place. The flight was carrying military personnel and highlevel Cuban and North-Korean government officials as well as two dozen young members of the Cuba’s PAN AM gold-medal fencing team and their trainers, and Guyanese about to begin medical study in Cuba. In April 1980, over 10,000 Cubans stormed the Peruvian embassy in Havana seeking political asylum. In response to this event, Castro allowed anyone who desired to leave Cuba to do so through the port of Mariel. Under the Mariel boatlift, which lasted from April 15 to

78

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

October 31, 1980, more than 125,000 Cubans migrated to the United States. The immigrants were detained upon arrival, and crowded conditions in South Florida immigration processing centers forced U.S. government agencies to swiftly move the “Marielitos” to other centers in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arkansas. Upon arrival, many Cubans were placed in refugee camps, while others were confined to federal prisons to undergo expulsion hearings. Some of the refugees were later discovered to be violent felons released from Cuban prisons. However, most of the refugees were very poor and merely sought a better life for themselves. Eventually, the United States stopped the f low of vessels, and Cuba ended the uncontrolled exodus. In 1995, the U.S. government entered into an agreement with the Cuban government to resolve the emigration crisis that created the Mariel Boatlift. The result of the negotiations was the Cuban Adjustment Act under which the United States was required to issue 20,000 visas annually to Cubans emigrants. However, the Bush Administration has refused to comply with the act, issuing only 505 visas to Cubans in the first six months of 2003. Coast Guard data shows that this has led to a dramatic increase in the number of Cubans trying to enter the United States illegally with 2,683 Cubans being intercepted at sea and turned back in 2005, twice the number intercepted in 2004. 8 It is estimated by the U.S. Border Patrol that approximately 2,530 Cubans made the voyage safely to Florida in the 2004, compared with 954 in 2003.9 Scarface (1983) is a remake of the classic 1932 film, which follows the rise of Tony Montana, a Cuban émigré who, with his friend Manny Ray, builds a strong criminal and drug empire in early 1980s Miami. The film begins by following Montana and Ray from their trip on the Cuban boatlift for refugees to their arrival in Miami. After killing a powerful Cuban figure, Montana and Ray gain the ability to leave their refugee camps and roam around the United States and resort to selling cocaine to dealers around the world. Eventually, the grandiose Montana becomes head of a cocaine cartel. This film implies that many of the Cubans from the Mariel boatlift turned to lives of crime after arriving in the United States and are responsible for the drug problems facing the United States today. Cuba is often referred to by the United States in the same class as the South American “drug countries.” In the film Bad Boys II (2003), the plot has Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, who are part of the Miami PD’s Tactical Narcotics Team, being assigned to stop the flow of ecstasy into Miami. It turns out that Cuban Drug Lord Hector Juan Carlos “Johnny” Tapia wants to take control of the entire ecstasy trade

The Republic of Cuba

●

79

in the United States and is working with local dealers and club owners including a Russian mafia boss. Tapia is using a mortuary as a cover for his operations, smuggling ecstasy hidden inside dead bodies, while sending his money to Cuba in hidden compartments in the coffins. Tapia then kidnaps the female heroine and takes her to his compound in Cuba. With the unofficial help of the CIA and anti-Castro forces in Cuba, Mike and Marcus manage to save the day. The outline of the plot sums up the entire anti-Cuba sentiment of the film and manages to link Cuba to drug dealing, kidnapping, money laundering, and the Russian mafia. Interestingly, Morley and McGillion10 revealed that although Senator Helms and others have alleged that Cuba traffics drugs, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, after repeated investigations, has found no evidence of Cuban involvement in drug smuggling. Moreover, Cuba has been especially cooperative in working with the U.S. Coast Guard to prevent drug smuggling. In fact, the annual State Department reports on drugs control has never listed Cuba as a major drug transit country. Morley and McGillion in Cuba, The United States, and the Post–Cold War World: The International Dimensions of the Washington-Havana Relationship (2005) examine in depth the effect of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Comecon economic bloc, on Cuba. The end of the Cold War dealt Cuba a giant economic blow, and this led to another exodus of asylum seekers to the United States in 1994, which was slowed to a trickle of a few thousands a year by the Clinton-Castro accords. Although U.S. citizens are not officially banned from travelling to Cuba, they are generally prohibited from spending money there (exceptions are made for students studying in Cuba, diplomats, certain business people, and people with family members in Cuba), which amounts to a de facto travel ban, as Cuba requires that foreign visitors spend a minimum of three nights in a hotel. Moreover, the only direct flights from the United States are strictly for those with family members in Cuba, or others with licenses from OFAC. Nevertheless, U.S. citizens can visit Cuba by traveling through other countries such as Mexico, Canada, or the Bahamas because Cuban immigration does not stamp the passports (the visum is a separate leaf let). However, U.S. citizens are liable to fines and imprisonment if discovered and prosecuted by the U.S. government. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (also known as the Helms-Burton Act) codified the long-standing embargo policy as law on March 12, 1996. This Act strengthens and continues the U.S. embargo against Cuba. The introduction of the bill

80

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

% of respondents

was prompted by an episode that happened a month earlier when on February 24, 1996, Cuban fighter jets shot down two private planes operated by a Cuban refugee group called Brothers to the Rescue (Hermanos al Rescate). This law states, among other things, that any non-U.S. company that “knowingly traffics in property in Cuba confiscated without compensation from a U.S. person” can be subjected to litigation, and that company’s leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Effectively, this covers any dealings with Cuba because everything is in some way connected to something that has been confiscated in the late 1950s. Sanctions may be applied to nonU.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the United States, which is a much larger market.11 This legislation prohibiting trade with Cuba is well supported by Americans. In fact, fewer Americans support reestablishing relations with Cuba in 2005 than they did in 1974, just a decade after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Figure 4.212 shows this below. However, the majority of Americans do seem to support the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. The Council of Europe, the European Union, Canada, and other U.S. allies that enjoy normal trade relations with Cuba condemned the Helms-Burton Act. The law contained provisions that sought to punish non-U.S. companies for engaging in trade with Cuba, which governments and businesses in other countries argued run counter to the spirit of international law and sovereignty. Humanitarian groups have also condemned the law because these groups argue sanctions against

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1974

1977

1996

1999 Favor

2000 Oppose

Figure 4.2 American support for reestablishing relations with Cuba

2002

2004

The Republic of Cuba

●

81

an entire country will affect only the innocent population but not the leaders. According to the CIA’s Factbook, Cuba’s territorial waters and air space serve as transhipment zone for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe, and Cuba is currently listed by the United States as one of the “outposts of tyranny.” The Cuban government has frequently been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extra-judicial executions. Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro’s leadership. Many Cubans have been labeled “counterrevolutionaries,” “fascists,” or “CIA operatives,” and opponents argue these people are imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial or are summarily executed. Following the Cuban Revolution, the Roman Catholic Church suffered persecution. Castro severely limited its activities and in 1961, he confiscated, without compensation, all property held by religious organizations. Hundreds of members of the clergy, including a bishop, were permanently expelled from the nation. Cuba was officially atheist until 1992 when the Communist Party of Cuba agreed to allow religious followers to join the party. In 1998, Pope John Paul II visited the island and was allowed to conduct large outdoor masses. During his visit, the Pope strongly condemned Castro and his human rights record but encouraged reconciliation. That same year, Cuba approved visas for nineteen foreign priests to take up residence in the country. In addition, other religious groups in Cuba such as the Jewish community are now permitted to hold public services and to import religious materials and kosher food for Passover, as well as to receive rabbis and other religious visitors from abroad. In 1960, Armando Valladares was working at the Cuban Postal Savings Bank when agents of the Ministry of Communications handed him a card bearing a Communist slogan and told him to put it on his worktable. The twenty-three-year-old Valladares refused. Astonished, the agents asked him if he had anything against Castro. Valladares answered that if Castro was a Communist, he did. Valladares was convicted on a charge of placing bombs in public places and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. Valladares claims to have been tortured and humiliated. While on a hunger strike to protest prison abuses, he claims the guards denied him water until he became delirious, and proceeded to urinate in his mouth and on his face. Valladares was released from prison after twenty-two years upon the intercession of France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand.

82

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

On August 28, 1998 a Havana court sentenced Reynaldo Alfaro García, a member of the Democratic Solidarity Party, to three years in prison for “spreading enemy propaganda” and “rumor-mongering.” Desi Mendoza, a Cuban doctor, was imprisoned for making statements criticizing Cuba’s response to an epidemic of dengue fever in Santiago de Cuba, which, according to him, had caused several deaths. Dr. Mendoza had been fired from his job in a Cuban hospital three years earlier for establishing an independent medical association. He was later released due to ill health, subject to his leaving the country. Cuba placed a moratorium on the use of capital punishment in 2001, but this ended after three years when, in 2003, three Cubans were executed for a ferry hijacking using automatic weapons and civilians as hostages. From 1959 until 1993 some 25,000 Cubans left the island. Some Cubans left for economic reasons, some for political ones, but most departed for a combination of the two. It is estimated that only one of every three or four Cubans who have attempted to escape has been successful. Thousands have died in the attempt. On July 13, 1994, seventy-two Cubans attempted to leave the Island on a tugboat named the 13 de Marzo. In an attempt by the Cuban Navy to stop the tugboat, patrol boats were sent out to stop the tug. Crewmen and survivors reported that the interdiction vessels rammed the tugboat and sprayed its passengers with high-pressure fire hoses, sweeping many overboard. A total of forty-one men, women, and children drowned after being swept off the tug’s deck, eleven of these were children under the age of twelve. The Cuban government established special prison labor camps in 1965 called Military Units to Aid Production (MUAP). They were designed to eliminate the bourgeois and counterrevolutionary values in certain segments of the Cuban population, of which gay men were one such segment. While the camps were disbanded in 1968, those who were incarcerated in them continued to be discriminated against by the Cuban government. Homosexuals are not permitted to join the Communist Party, because being gay is assumed to be contrary to Communist ethics. In 1979, homosexual acts were decriminalized in Cuba. In 1987, the offense of “homosexual acts in public places” was removed from Cuba’s penal code. The 1994 Oscar-nominated film Strawberry and Chocolate (nominated for Best Foreign Film) is demonstrative of the current climate toward homosexuality, which is official indifference toward the issue,

The Republic of Cuba

●

83

but also a lack of protection for one’s sexual orientation. It was the only film funded by the Cuban government that year. According to Human Rights Watch, the Cuban government has authority to restrict freedom of speech, association, assembly, press, and movement. Cuban Justice Minister Roberto Díaz Sotolongo once justified such restrictions as similar to laws that Spain uses to protect its monarchy from criticism. Cuba’s constitution of 1976 makes human rights subservient to the state’s political aims. Article 62 states: None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to what is established in the Constitution and by law, or contrary to the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law. Another clause in the 1976 Cuban constitution states that anyone suspected of being prone to commit a crime in the future, as a preventive measure, can be sent to jail indefinitely.

In Cuba, it has at times been illegal to buy food from unauthorized sources. Established as early as 1962, food rationing has been condemned by opponents of the Cuban government as a form of control, since people who rely on the Cuban government for food subsidies may have those subsidies reduced or stopped if they are involved in counterrevolutionary activities. The Supply or Ration Book has controlled the amount and the frequency of Cubans’ food purchases. In recent years, however, a largely tolerated black market has arisen. Also, economic reforms have been instituted that allow farmers to sell a portion of their production in markets. These changes have loosened the previous regime of rationing. From the age of sixteen (the legal voting age), every citizen must carry an Identity Card. This passport-like Identity Card includes a complete personal history, showing present and past addresses, work history, marital status, and number of children. Castro’s critics cite this as a form of oppression. Permission from the government is required to move to another home due to the lack of private property rights. Jobs also are subject to state control. Travel abroad is highly restricted, almost impossible, for workers in some fields (healthcare, schools, government) as well as for some dissidents. In 1989, General Arnaldo Ochoa once proclaimed “Hero of the Revolution” by Fidel Castro, along with three other high-ranking officers, was brought to trial for drug trafficking. This offense carries a

84

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

maximum sentence of twenty years, but Ochoa and the others were convicted of treason, and promptly executed, largely on the basis of secret evidence. Opponents of the Castro government outside of Cuba expressed skepticism about the arrest and execution of Ochoa. In the opinion of former Brigadier-General Rafael del Pino, who had been a close personal friend of Ochoa since the early days of the revolution, the arrest and execution was an attempt to keep a different high-ranking Cuban official from defecting. Del Pino himself defected from Cuba in May 1987. In March 2003, the government of Cuba arrested dozens of journalists, librarians, and human rights activists, and charged them with sedition due to their alleged contacts with James Cason, head of the U.S. interest section in Havana. The accused were tried and sentenced to prison terms ranging from fifteen to twenty-eight years. In all, seventyfive journalists, librarians, and dissidents were given lengthy sentences averaging seventeen years each. Currently sixty-one of the seventy-five original inmates remain behind bars. Since 2002, the U.S. Base at Guantánamo Bay has been used to house suspected al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere in facilities called Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta, and Camp Echo. Allegations of mistreatment and torture at the prison camp have been made by former detainees and by international human rights organizations. The United States has classified the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray as “illegal combatants” rather than prisoners of war, and claims that the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions do not apply. The Bush Administration also claims that Cuba retains sovereignty over the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo and that the prisoners may thus be held indefinitely without the U.S. Constitutional protections that would apply if they were being held on U.S. territory. David Rose in his 2004 book Guantánamo: The War on Human Rights (2004) examines Bush’s “War on Terror” and the methodology used to extract information from those being held by the United States at Guantánamo and other prisons around the world. It is an insightful book that establishes the legal black-hole that is the U.S. base in Cuba and why having this is so strategically important to the United States. A Few Good Men (1992) is a film that centers on the use and abuse of Guantánamo Bay in Cuba by the U.S. military.13 Starring Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Pollack, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, and Jack Nicholson, the film has a formidable cast. The film says very little about Cuba’s relations with the United States but does make it clear

The Republic of Cuba

●

85

that Guantánamo Bay is essential in the defense of the United States against Cuba, and that it is an extremely dangerous but a very strategic and important place in terms of U.S. security. During the film, Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, who is the Commander of the Marine Base at Guantánamo Bay, states: I eat breakfast three hundred yards from four thousand Cubans who are trained to kill me.

And that despite what people say about the U.S. base in Cuba: You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. . . . and the blanket of freedom I provide.

*

*

*

Cuba became a staunch ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and became a major sponsor of Marxist “wars of national liberation” not only in Latin America, but worldwide. Castro’s support extended to groups such as the URNG of Guatemala, the FMLN of El Salvador, the FSLN of Nicaragua, and ELN and FARC rebels in Colombia. In sub– Saharan Africa, Cuban troops along with the Soviet Union provided aid to the FRELIMO and MPLA dictatorships in Mozambique and Angola, respectively, while they were fighting U.S. and South Africanbacked insurgent groups RENAMO (supported by Rhodesia as well) and UNITA. Cuba has also aided the Communist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia during its conf lict with Somalia and domestic secessionists and left-wing rebels. Cuba supported the Sandinista leadership of Nicaragua and the New Jewel Movement government of Grenada. Guerrilla groups supported by Castro became quite active in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in Central America, with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua perhaps becoming the most unstable countries as Havana assisted Marxist rebel coalitions dissatisfied with their respective governments. In the 1960s and 1970s, Castro openly supported the black nationalist and Marxist-oriented Black Panther Party of the United States. Many members found their way into Cuba for political asylum, where Castro welcomed them after they had been convicted of crimes in the United States. Castro has also lent support to Palestinian nationalist groups against Israel, a state he claims practices “Zionist Fascism.” The prominent

86

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) both received training from Cuba’s General Intelligence Directorate as well as financial and diplomatic support from the Cuban government. Cuba has a good relationship with former South African President Nelson Mandela that comes out of Cuba’s support for Mandela’s African National Congress organization in the 1970s and 1980s. In the post–Cold War environment, Castro continues to provide assistance to revolutionary groups, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of peace in most of the developing Western Hemisphere, Cuba is not the inf luential Latin American power it once was. Rather than being a revolutionary influence on the region, Castro today works with a growing bloc of Latin American politicians opposed to the Washington consensus. There are several very popular films that have Cuba on the periphery of the plot and always in a pejorative way. The winner of six Academy Awards The Godfather II (1974) is the continuing saga of the Corleone crime family. It tells the story of a young Vito Corleone growing up in Sicily and in 1910s New York and follows Michael Corleone in the 1950s as he attempts to expand the family business into Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Cuba. The always popular Bond films make reference to Cuba in the 1995 Bond film, GoldenEye. GoldenEye begins in 1986 with James Bond (007) and Alec Trevelyan (006) infiltrating a Soviet chemical weapons compound where the Russians have been arming international terrorists with chemical weapon technology. After a nuclear accident occurs over a Russian region housing the tracking station for a weapons satellite known as Golden Eye, it all comes to a climax in the jungles of Cuba. Although neither of these films uses Cuba as a central part of the plot, the association of Cuba to both crime and the Soviet Union is reinforced. The 2002 Bond film Die Another Day also manages to throw Cuba into the plot and link it to another Rogue State: North Korea. The film begins in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea and continues via Hong Kong to Cuba and then onto London. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba after the Cold War, 1989– 2001 (2002) gives an in-depth account of the unremitting hostility by the United States to the Cuban revolution. It shows that the U.S. government is not seeking democracy or reforms in Cuba but rather its sole goal is to destroy Cuba’s social, political, and economic order. Morley and McGillion illustrate how President Clinton was even more anti-Cuba than President George HW Bush, having signed the

The Republic of Cuba

●

87

Helms-Burton Bill. The book goes on to describe that since 1994, the State Department’s annual studies of “Patterns of Global Terrorism” have found no evidence of Cuban sponsorship of, or links to, terrorist activities. Despite this lack of evidence, the U.S. government continues to list Cuba as a “terrorist state.” In fact, Cuba denounced the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an “atrocious and insane terrorist act,” and offered to cooperate in the global war on terrorism but the United States rejected the offer. In 1999, the Clinton Administration passed the Cuban Internal Opposition Assistance Act, providing extra money for “dissidents.” The United States funds the Cuban American National Foundation, the European Coalition for Human Rights in Cuba, and the Cuban Dissidents Task Force. In 1994, the State Department could find that there were only six alleged political prisoners in Cuba, somewhat fewer than in the United States! In relation to the portrayal of Cuba in Hollywood films, there are really two categories into which these films can be grouped. The first are films that portray Cuba as a Soviet proxy of the Cold War era such as Thirteen Days (2000). This film is seen to be telling the “facts” of U.S.-Cuban relations during the Cold War and describes Cuba’s role as part of the overarching battle with the Evil Empire and Communist ideology. The second category of films are those that are set in the post–Cold War era where Cuba is no longer a Soviet outpost but nevertheless a Communist relic. Cuba is seen in these films as a country that harbors and exports drug dealers, engages in money laundering, and has significant links to terrorist groups. Films such as the James Bond extravaganzas, GoldenEye (1995) and Die Another Day (2002), fall into this category. The interesting feature is that from an examination of U.S.-Cuba relations, it is simple to conclude that Cuba is not considered a Rogue State because of the threat it is currently to the United States but rather because of the threat it was to the United States over fifty years ago. It is apparent, that like Iran, Cuba is considered a Rogue State by the United States, and the United States alone, and for reasons that have nothing to do with the current “menace” Cuba poses. This is ref lected in the weak references Hollywood film makes to Cuba as a state associated with the “baddies” rather than necessarily being the “baddie.”

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 5

The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

P

erhaps the most popular time-travel film of all time is the 1985 Steven Spielberg’s classic Back to the Future. This is a typical Spielberg family-feel-good picture where cherubic Marty McFly, played by the eternally youthful Michael J. Fox, helps out his eccentric friend, Doc Brown, and ends up being taken from the present (in the 1980s) back in time to the 1950s in Doc’s time-machine. The film is characteristic of the family-comedy genre with poor Marty having to come to grips with being in the 1950s and trying to get his parents to fall in love to reduce the damage his presence has done to the events of the past, which will affect the events of the future! Back to the Future was the highest grossing film of 19851 and has stood the test of time by being rerun regularly on television for new audiences to enjoy and fans to resave. The only thing that dates this classic is a bizarre little subplot involving Libyan terrorists. Apparently, these stupid and incredibly inept Libyans have stolen plutonium and charged Doc with making a nuclear bomb, but instead he has used the plutonium to power his timemachine. Not surprisingly, the Libyans want it back. What is really significant about this otherwise timeless family film is that Spielberg singles out the Libyans as nuclear obsessed terrorists in a movie that has nothing to do with politics, the Middle East, or U.S. foreign policy. It is very clear that the Libyans are the “bad guys” of the film despite Doc having been the one to do the “wrong thing” by them. When Marty asks how Doc acquired the plutonium, he tells Marty: From a group of Libyan nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn, gave them a shiny bombcasing filled with used pinball machine parts.

90

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The timing of this film is crucial in that Libya was just emerging on the U.S. radar as a Rogue State and Back to the Future was able to articulate the Libyans as “the bad guys” to the U.S. public at least as well as a bombing campaign by Reagan could have done. It should be stated that prior to the film’s release, Libya had not had any dealings with nuclear weapons or the theft of plutonium but soon after the film’s release, U.S. planes bombed Libyan “terrorist centers.” In fact, both reality and Reagan are invoked in the film when a much younger Doc Brown doubts Marty McFly’s story that he is from the future. Doc says: “Then tell me, ‘future boy,’ who is President in the United States in 1985?” Marty responds that it is “Ronald Reagan.” Doc replies with disbelief: Ronald Reagan? The actor? Who’s Vice President? Jerry Lewis? . . . I suppose Jane Wyman is the first lady. And Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury. I’ve had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, future boy.

As the time-travel match-making plot continues, the Libyans all of a sudden reappear in a “comic” scene that portrays them as incompetent and feeble. Having realized Doc’s deception, they track him down; however, just as they are about to wreak havoc, their AK-47 jams and their VW Minibus stalls. The Libyan gunman curses: “Damn Soviet gun” and the Libyan van driver curses: “Damn German car.” These two remarks link the Libyans to both the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union and the Nazis and thus further exemplify their evilness. Why these Libyan scenes are included in this movie is unknown, and twenty years on, it is the only part of the script that dates an otherwise “timeless” film. *

*

*

On December 24, 1951, Libya declared independence and was the first country to do so through the United Nations. 2 Libya gained independence much earlier than the rest of the colonies of the Middle East and North Africa for several reasons. Following the end of World War II and the defeat of Italy, Libya was left without a colonial power to administer it. The British and French “shared” this role, 3 and under the 1947 peace treaty with the Allies, Italy formally relinquished all claims to the colony. However, the British and French were not particularly pleased with this arrangement, and so in 1949, the UN General Assembly

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

91

passed a resolution supporting Libyan independence and thus Libya was proclaimed a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under the ageing King Idris, traditional leader of the Senussi movement that had fought the Italians.4 In 1959, the discovery of significant oil reserves enabled Libya, which had previously been one of the world’s poorest countries, to become extremely wealthy. However, resentment began to mount as this wealth was concentrated in the hands of a small elite. The 1960s were the high watermark of Arab radicalism and change. On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by Muammar Qaddafi staged a bloodless coup against the King resulting in the abolition of the monarchy proclaiming Libya to be an Arab Republic led by the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), which was modeled on the actions of Nasser in Egypt seventeen years before. Qaddafi emerged as the leader of the RCC and became the de facto head of state and is officially referred to as the “Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Arab Libyan Popular and Socialist Jamahiriya.” Having rejected both Soviet Communism and Western Capitalism, by the 1970s Qaddafi was advocating his own unique political ideology, the Third Universal Theory, as outlined in his Green Book (1976), which is a combination of socialism and Islam, and in the words of the Colonel promotes freedom, socialism, and unity. True to the tenets of Arab Nationalism as practiced by Nasser, Libya supports the Palestinian cause, Arab unity, and the equitable distribution of wealth. Viewing himself as a revolutionary leader and having the oil wealth with which to do so, Qaddafi began to promote his ideology outside Libya during the 1970s and early 1980s. This included supporting groups to hasten the end of the Soviet Union and U.S. hegemony.5 U.S.-Libyan relations began to deteriorate rapidly following the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan in January 1981. From the time of Reagan’s inauguration, Libya was suspected of being a state that supported and perpetrated acts of terrorism.6 In February 1980, the U.S. media reported that Qaddafi’s revolutionary committees called for Libyan dissidents living abroad to be assassinated by Libyan hit squads.7 In 1981, Claire Sterling published a book called The Terror Network, the major argument of which was that the Soviet Union remains the central sponsor of terrorism, with Cuba, the PLO, and Qaddafi being the immediate promoters. 8 The results of their efforts, Sterling argued, have been that small local movements have turned into major threats. This book very much inf luenced the Reagan Administration’s approach

92

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

to terrorism and amplified the shift in U.S. Foreign Policy from Carter’s Human Rights focus to Reagan’s early version of the War Against Terrorism, in which Libya was a major player.9 However, Guy Arnold, in his book The Maverick State examines Libya’s foreign relations since the 1969 revolution and suggests that the United States attempts to degrade and destabilize Libya have been out of proportion to Libya’s offenses and really ref lect the United States’ inability to cope with a contradictory, maverick leader who refuses to behave like a small world power.10 As early as October 11, 1973, Libya notified the U.S. State Department that the Gulf of Sidra was to be a closed bay and thus part of Libya’s territorial waters. The United States rejected this claim citing that under international practice, the opening across a closed bay can be no more than 24 miles whilst the Gulf of Sidra opening was over 300 miles across. This disagreement was to have significant ramifications for both countries a decade later when Libya had declared a “line of death” in the Gulf of Sidra that if crossed would lead to a military response.11 As Colonel Qaddafi said in January 1986, I am sailing out along parallel 32.5 to stress that this is the Libyan border. This is the line of death where we shall stand and fight with our backs to the wall.12

Following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, a group of Libyans apparently inspired by the events in Tehran attacked the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and set it on fire,13 which contributed to its permanent closure in May 1980. According to the media, Libyan authorities did nothing to stop the attack.14 On May 6, 1981, the United States ordered the Libyan People’s Bureau in Washington closed on the grounds that Libyan diplomatic personnel were suspected of being involved in a range of illegal and un-diplomatic activities, including terrorism and the intimidation of Libyan dissidents in the United States. In August 1981, two Libyan fighter jets engaged two U.S. F-14 Tomcats operating over the Gulf of Sidra and the Libyan jets were shot down. This led to the United States placing an embargo on Libyan oil imports and the export of U.S. oil industry technology to Libya. The United States then began to patrol the Libyan-Egyptian and the Libyan-Sudanese border. Following this came a spate of diplomatic incidents. The media reported that Libyan “hit squads” had entered the United States to

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

93

assassinate President Reagan, and then U.S. intelligence discovered a Libyan plot to assassinate or kidnap the U.S. Ambassador to Italy Maxwell Rabb. The following month, the U.S. Ambassador to France Christian Chapman was fired upon and Secretary of State Alexander Haig told a congressional committee that he suspected it was Libyans who fired the shots.15 Haig also implicated Libya in a 1977 assassination plan that reportedly was targeting U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Hermann Eilts. The United States also suspected that Libya was responsible for explosives that were discovered in music speakers at a U.S. Embassy sponsored dance in Khartoum, Sudan. As a result of these incidents, President Reagan banned all U.S. travel to Libya and requested that all U.S. citizens leave Libya so as to avoid a hostage situation similar to the one that occurred in Iran in 1979. In January 1986, the United States undertook naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea close to the Gulf of Sidra, and all through February, Libyan and U.S. aircraft engaged in over a dozen encounters although none resulted in shots being fired. In March, Libya fired eight missiles at U.S. aircraft, and although all missed their targets, the United States retaliated by taking out the SA-5 installations and sinking four small Libyan boats that approached the U.S. f leet. These clashes regarding access to the Gulf of Sidra between Libyan patrol boats and the U.S. Navy were followed by the U.S. accusation that Libya was involved in both the Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks in 1985 and the bomb explosion in a Berlin discotheque in 1986.16 Five days later, President Reagan ordered bombing raids over Tripoli and Benghazi.17 At the time 71 percent of Americans approved of the U.S. military action against Libya18 and 91 percent of Americans believed Colonel Qaddafi was a sponsor of terrorism.19 Furthermore, 34 percent of Americans supported economic sanctions against Libya, 10 percent supported the bombing of the Libyan oil fields, and 42 percent of Americans supported the removal of Qaddafi from power through a U.S. supported military coup. 20 Following this allegation of terrorism, Libya was also accused of supporting external terrorist groups. According to the U.S. State Department, 21 Libya has funded the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), 22 the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) Movement, the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF), Irish Republican Army (IR A), 23 the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), as well as being a supporter of Carlos the Jackal during the 1980s. Interestingly, Libya also financially supports other groups such as the American Black Muslims, Australian

94

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Aborigines, and black South Africans during apartheid, whose stated goal is to bring to an end repression. Colonel Qaddafi does not believe that these groups are terrorist organizations. In an oft-quoted response to President Reagan’s charge that Abu Nidal was a terrorist, the Colonel stated: “If Abu Nidal is a terrorist, then so is George Washington.”24 In December 1988, a Pan-Am 747 blew up and crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground. It was found that Libyan terrorists were responsible. So in the final days of Reagan’s presidency, in what some believed to be a retaliatory attack, U.S. planes shot down two Libyan fighters over international waters in the Mediterranean. As a result of the “Lockerbie bombing” the UN imposed sanctions on Libya in 1992. 25 Why it took four years to impose these sanctions is cause for some debate. Many believe that it was due to the fact that no one really knew who had masterminded the attack and as a result the blame shifted many times between possible suspects, such as the Iranians, the Palestinians, and the Lebanese before finally settling on the Libyans. As a result of being found to be to blame, the Security Council passed additional resolutions 26 that obliged Libya to fulfill the requirements related to the Lockerbie bombing before the sanctions could be lifted, and as a result Libya spent most of the 1990s in political and economic isolation. 27 In 1999, Libya surrendered the two Libyans suspected in the Lockerbie incident to a Scottish court in the Netherlands for trial. One suspect was found innocent, and the other was found guilty. The UN sanctions were first suspended and then fully lifted in September 2003 after Libya accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials and agreed to release $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the Lockerbie victims. The U.S. sanctions though remained in force. 28 Libya’s hostility toward the United States rested on a belief that the United States, as a global power, was intent on maintaining its hegemonic “control” over the Arab and Islamic world. Furthermore, Libyans have been resentful of U.S. support of Israel to the detriment of Arabs and Muslims. 29 However, since the events of September 11, 2001, things have changed, and Colonel Qaddafi, and Libya have managed to redeem themselves in the eyes of the international community. Qaddafi now supports the idea of a one-state solution to the IsraelPalestine conflict and was one of the first to denounce al-Qaida and its actions. Libya then confessed to having a WMD program and allowed UN inspectors to dismantle it. Qaddafi is seen as a benefactor to many struggling African nations pouring vast sums of money into sub- Saharan countries for humanitarian reasons. 30 This involvement

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

95

has also included at times military interventionism, often-extravagant economic involvement and an ambitious role in the African Union with efforts to secure an alternate USA—the United States of Africa. 31 Qaddafi’s eldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi, who is the head of the Human Rights Society of the Qaddafi International Foundation for Charity Association, 32 is seen by many as a moderating force upon his father, although some suggest he has inherited his quirkiness. 33 It is suspected by some that perhaps Qaddafi is grooming Saif al-Islam to take over from him and is now cooperating with the world community to make this transition of power easier.34 Nelson Mandela and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have both praised Qaddafi’s actions with Blair stating during his State Visit to Libya in March 2004 that Libya could now be a strong ally in the international War on Terror. It is important to recognize that following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blair’s reputation and popularity had been wounded, and to redeem his reputation, Blair really needed a success in the Middle East. The “bringing back” of Libya from “Roguedom” demonstrated two things: first, that Rogue States can reenter the world community if they cooperate and adhere to the expectations of it, and second, it is not necessary for the military to be involved in this redemption. Thus it appears that after twenty-seven years as an international pariah, Libya has reentered the world community. So far, it is the only Rogue State to have redeemed itself without undergoing “regime change.” As of May 15, 2006, Libya is once again a full member of the international community with the United States finally terminating all of its sanctions against Libya and removing Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism and lifting its twenty-three-year travel ban on U.S. citizens to Libya.35 *

*

*

Just as Libyans first appeared on the U.S. radar as a Rogue State during the Reagan Presidency, the emergence of Libyans in Hollywood film also occurred at this time. The role that is most often assigned to them is that of the villain. Films in this period such as Back to the Future (1985), Half Moon Street (1986), Broadcast News (1987), The Naked Gun (1988), and Terror Squad (1988) all show Libyans as the villain juxtaposed with the heroic United States. All of these films were very popular when they were released, and all but Terror Squad are now considered to be classics. These five films portrayed Libyans as nuclear terrorists (Back to the Future and Terror

96

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Squad ), terrorist bombers (Half Moon Street and Broadcast News), and just terrorists in general (The Naked Gun and Terror Squad ). Perhaps a line from Broadcast News sums up Hollywood’s concept of Libya as being a Rogue State during the Reagan Presidency when the newsreader declares that “Libya has always been an outlaw nation.” In Half Moon Street (1986) the tagline describes the plot well: “Dr. Lauren Slaughter: Professor, Emissary, Hooker, Target.” Sigourney Weaver plays Dr. Lauren Slaughter who is a research fellow at the ArabAnglo Institute in London. Dr. Slaughter is frustrated by her job and to earn a little extra money and add some “spice” to her life, she starts moonlighting as an escort. During one of her “dates,” she meets a politician Lord Bulbeck, played by Michael Caine, who is in the midst of trying to mediate a peace agreement between the Arabs and Israelis. Lord Bulbeck falls in love with Lauren, which puts her life in danger. Although there are many scenes in this film where generic sleazy Arabs are seen either masquerading as legitimate businessmen or ogling Lauren, one scene in particular singles out the Libyans. During a discussion on a recent car bombing, it is suggested that a Libyan exile is probably responsible. The film Broadcast News (1987) is in essence a romantic comedy with a love triangle. Holly Hunter plays a network news producer who, much to her chagrin, finds herself falling for handsome anchorman William Hurt who is all glamour but lacks substance and represents the shift from “hard news” toward packaged “infotainment.” Albert Brooks provides the contrast as the gifted reporter with almost no presence on camera. He carries a torch for Hunter but she sees him as just a friend. This film was nominated for seven Academy Awards although it did not win any, and many see it as a genuine portrayal of life inside a newsroom. During one of the scenes of “on-air” reporting, Hurt delivers a special Middle East bulletin. He reveals that a “Libyan MIG-21 dropped all four of its bombs on the Air Station . . . there are some 500 men and women stationed there . . . naturally, we shot down the plane. Libya has always been an outlaw nation.” During this piece, archival footage of Colonel Qaddafi appears on screen. As in Back to the Future, this scene adds little to the plot but is rather used to increase the “reality impact” of the film. The fact that during the previous year the United States bombed Libya contributes to this impression. It was the end of the Reagan Presidency that saw the end of U.S. bombings of Libya and the start of UN sanctions. During the Presidency of Bush (41), Iraq emerged as the new “Rogue de jour,” and the focus on Libya as a Rogue State in Hollywood film

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

97

decreased. Although several films such as Cover-Up (1991) and Eve of Destruction (1991) mention the Libyans in passing, they are included with Arabs and Muslims in general rather than singled out for “special treatment” as had happened previously. In fact, in Eve of Destruction, when talking about who to blame for a computer malfunction that kills some military personnel, Libya is linked to Iraq in this statement: “Iraqis or Libyans. Whoever is on top of your shit list.” This one line sentence is able to link the old enemy (Libya) to the new enemy (Iraq), as being countries that it is easy to believe would kill Americans despite the fact that again they have nothing to do with the film. Similarly, in Cover-Up (1991), Libya and Iran are linked and portrayed as Muslim Extremists who kill eight Marines in a truck bombing, reminiscent of the PLO attack in Lebanon in 1982, which in reality had nothing to do with Libyans or Iranians. The only other film during the Bush (41) Presidency to mention Libyans was Patriot Games (1992) in which Harrison Ford plays the role of Jack Ryan, a former CIA analyst. The plot sees Ryan holidaying in London when he is caught up in the middle of an IR A terrorist attack and becomes a hero for saving the life of the target, Lord Holmes. Ryan then becomes a target for the terrorist leader whose brother he killed. Whilst the “baddies” in the film are clearly the extremist, renegade wing of the IR A, they are linked in several scenes to Libya, which serves to demonstrate their wickedness. The CIA satellite images highlight “Libyan bases” that are described as havens for Irish extremists, and show “terrorists” who are said to be “arms dealer[s] that supply Qaddafi.” American forces then bomb these “terrorist camps” killing most of the Irish terrorists being “trained” there. This 1992 film was released at the time when Libya was under UN sanctions and being pressured into handing over the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. The film reinforces the idea that Libya is a country that runs “terrorist training camps” and supports international terrorist activities. This has a twofold effect in that those who believe that Libya is a country that supports terrorism would have this opinion reinforced by the film, and those who didn’t know very much about Libya would assume that it is a country that supports terrorism because the film portrays it as fact. The Naked Gun (1988) is a Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker film in the slapstick vein of Flying High (1980) replete with visual gags and what many would describe as “toilet humor.” The cast, however, is surprisingly respectable with Leslie Nielsen playing the incompetent Lieutenant Frank Drebin and Pricilla Presley as his love interest. The opening scene

98

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

of the film shows world leaders, including Colonel Qaddafi and Yasser Arafat, at a meeting in Beirut discussing how to best “punish America” when Drebin enters and physically attacks them stating: “Don’t ever let me catch you guys in America.” This has little to do with the main plot of the film, which centers on the assassination attempt on Queen Elizabeth II by an American. It is a rather bizarre and unexpected opening, but it makes the audience laugh and “get them in the mood” for the rest of the film. It assumes, however, that everybody thinks Libyans and Palestinians are “baddies” and that they are more inept than Frank Drebin! However, the most revealing film focusing on Libya being a Rogue State is The American President (1995). The main plot of this film is that the widower American President, Andrew Shepherd (played by Michael Douglas), falls in love with political lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade (played by Annette Bening) and follows the typical romance comedy formula of “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets the girl in the end.” What is interesting about this film is its context in the real world of politics. The President in the film is very similar to Bill Clinton who was President at the time. The Presidents are both in their forties with one child, a daughter. Both are Democrats, have slightly graying hair, and are well educated, antiwar, and good at economics. They also both have high personal and job approval ratings until they have a personal scandal. They are also both facing an election with the personal scandal threatening the result. The only real difference is that Andrew Shepherd is a widower while Bill Clinton had his wife Hillary deeply involved in a controversial health care plan. The film depicts President Shepherd’s opponent Republican Senator Bob Rumson (played by Richard Dreyfuss) as a bad guy who accuses the President of being a draft-dodger. Rumson attacks Shepherd on the grounds of character, which the film argues should not be an issue as long as the President is doing his job. The same arguments could be made for President Clinton. The American President was directed by Rob Reiner, a registered Democrat, who has been quoted as attacking Bob Dole for his criticism of Hollywood violence. Bob Rumson’s character is almost certainly modeled on Bob Dole and is portrayed as not being up to date with current affairs and being a philistine for having been on a hunting trip. Rumson is also portrayed as dishonest about Sydney Ellen Wade who comments, “He’s making this up as he goes along” whilst watching Rumson on television.

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

99

The American President seems to be a ref lection of reality with the President in the film being very similar to the President in reality. What is striking in the film is that although President Shepherd talks a lot about solving crime and protecting the environment, his only real presidential action happens when he bombs Libya. The President is interrupted by an aide stating the “Libyans have just bombed C-STAD,” a (fictitious) weapons system the United States has developed with the Israelis. When the President is troubled by his decision “to hit” those responsible for the attack, his Chief of Staff AJ MacInerney states: “Sir, it’s immediate, it’s decisive, it’s low-risk, and it’s a proportional response.” Being the caring President, he replies: “Someday someone’s going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.” After being congratulated on his response to the Libyan terrorism as being a “very presidential” act, the President gives this speech: Somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor is working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He’s going about doing his job because he has no idea, in about an hour he’s going to die in a massive explosion. He’s just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You’ve just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.

What is truly disturbing is that following the release of the movie, President Clinton used similar words when trying to justify his bombing in Sudan of the Al-Shifa chemical plant. Clinton said: I was here on this island up till 2.30 in the morning, trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no night shift. I believed I had to take the action I did, but I didn’t want some person who was a nobody to me—but who may have a family to feed and a life to live and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there—to die needlessly.36

The only time President Shepherd is seen in the film to be communicating with other world leaders is when he is said to be on the telephone with the Prime Minister of Israel discussing their problem with the Libyans. Although this information is imparted in less than five sentences between Lucy (the President’s daughter) and Ms. Wade, it announces very clearly to the audience that Israel is an ally of the United States whilst Libya is an enemy.

100

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The film offers other U.S. policy counsel on various issues relating to U.S. foreign and domestic policy. When talking about leadership, the President asserts: We’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a f lashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.

The President also preaches about the virtues of being a U.S. citizen and the responsibilities associated with such: America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech?” Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing centre stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the “land of the free”? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a f lag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that f lag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free.”

There are two lines in the film that really sum up U.S. foreign policy for the masses. One is where the President states that “The White House is the single greatest home court advantage in the modern world” and the second is when Leo Solomon, a political lobbyist, states: “Politics is perception.” Although The American President was released in 1995, seven years after the last U.S.-Libyan military confrontation, Libya is chosen as the “enemy” despite Iraq having been at war with the United States much more recently. There are several reasons that this could be the case. First, having Libya as the enemy gives the movie an “ageless” feel, and although the President is very clearly modeled on President Clinton, it makes the audience feel as though they could be watching a love story that could be taking place in the past, present, or even the future. Second, the United States had “defeated” Libya, and therefore Libya was not a current threat of any sort, which would mean that the audience would not be distracted from the main story, which is the romance. Finally, almost all of the target audience would remember the U.S. bombings of Libya and be able to identify with the United States “having to” bomb Libya for “security reasons.”

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

101

The 1997 film GI Jane sees Demi Moore as the first female U.S. Navy Seal trainee, and as Lieutenant Jordan O’Neil, she is trying to survive an inhumanly punishing regime that has a standard 60 percent dropout rate for men. The film sees the SEALs being dropped for exercises into “hostile waters.” One recruit asks if it is “Iran or Iraq?” but is told that it is Libya. The film then shows the SEALs being deployed off the Libyan coast and blowing up Libyans whilst trying to recover a U.S. powered nuclear satellite that is equipped with weapons-grade plutonium. The director, Ridley Scott, stretches the boundaries of believability in an attempt to show that women should be allowed to be in the services and that women are equal to men. To do this, he relies heavily on the idea of Libya as the enemy and a suitable recipient for an unprovoked attack by trainee forces. It is worthy of mention that Scott was denied Pentagon assistance for the film, not because Libya was the enemy, but because it depicted the U.S. forces as too misogynistic and brutal. There are several vital elements that need to be analyzed that arise from the above examination of U.S. foreign policy toward Libya and the portrayal of Libya in Hollywood film during the same period. 37 First, Libya appeared as a key “character” in Hollywood film at the same time as it was becoming a key “character” in U.S. foreign policy, allowing for “production lag,” which is the fact that it takes on average two years from the concept to the release for a Hollywood film. The film Back to the Future (1985) is a prime example of this with the concept being developed following the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident and the supposed “Libyan hit-squads” targeting dissidents, and the film being released just prior to the 1986 Gulf of Sidra incident. Second, the emerging perception of Libya’s “rogue character” was paralleled in both U.S. foreign policy and Hollywood films. This is by the fact that before Libya was identified as a Rogue State by the U.S. government, it was not singled out for “special” treatment in Hollywood film. Before 1980, Libyans were not portrayed as a “category,” and they were certainly not portrayed as terrorists, bombers, or the “baddies.” After 1980, however, Libyans emerged to form their own identity, which is that of terrorists, bombers, and “the enemy” of the West. Third, as U.S. foreign policy toward Libya changed, so too did Libya’s portrayal in Hollywood films. The end of the Reagan Administration coincided with the decline of Libya as the most prominent Rogue State enemy and the commencement of the Bush (41 Administration which saw the rise of Iraq as the new and dominant Rogue State). This shift is clearly ref lected in Hollywood film. During President

102

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Reagan’s second term in office, Libyans were the enemy in five 38 major Hollywood films whereas during President George H.W. Bush’s only term in office, Libyans were the enemy in three 39 films and two were not “A-list” films and in the third, Patriot Games, they were not the “main” enemy. Finally, as Libya declined in its prominence as a Rogue State in U.S. foreign policy so its appearance in Hollywood films waned. As Iraq became the focus of U.S. foreign policy in relation to Rogue States during the 1990s so the focus of Hollywood films shifted from Libya as the enemy to portraying Iraq as the enemy. This is discussed extensively in the next chapter, but it is important to note here that during the eight years of the Clinton Administration, Libya served as the “enemy” in only two major films, The American President and GI Jane and Libya is yet to appear as the enemy in a film released during the Bush (43) Administration. The reputation of Libya in the West, particularly in the United States, is of a country that funds radical organizations, meddles in its neighboring states’ domestic affairs, has nuclear ambitions, and is a staunch opponent of the State of Israel.40 This reputation persists despite Libya having renounced terrorism, halted the pursuit of its weapons of mass destruction program, supported the United States in the War on Terror, paid compensation to victims of Lockerbie, and given support to a one-state solution in Israel. The role of Hollywood films in the building, consolidation, and propagation of Libya’s reputation as a Rogue State has been clearly documented in this chapter. Hollywood’s espousal of Libya’s Roguedom is pervasive throughout all genres and across all target audience groups from teens through to seniors. Even in films where the Middle East and North Africa really have no place, such as a White House love story, Libyans and their nefarious activities are duly incorporated into the plot. It is the exercising of its “soft power” by Hollywood and its promotion and consolidation of Libya as a “baddie” through little snippets of Libya’s errant behavior that has led in a great part to Libya’s unfortunate reputation. The association between the change in Libyan status in U.S. foreign policy and the changing role of Libya in U.S. films is significant, and this can be supported by an overall shift in American opinion about Libya during the same period. Figure 5.141 shows that from 2001 until 2004, American perception of Libya has been changing. More Americans have a favorable impression of Libya with each passing year, and their unfavorable perception of Libya is declining.

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

●

103

80 70

% of respondents

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2001

2002 Total Favorable

2003

2004

Total Unfavorable

Figure 5.1 American perception of Libya

The recent redemption of Libya in the eyes of the world community, the American people and, to a lesser degree, in the eyes of the American foreign policy elite has also been noted in Hollywood film. There has been a sharp decline in the portrayal of Libyans since the appearance of Iraq on Rogue State radar, and it is this new Rogue State that will be examined in the following chapter.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 6

The Republic of Iraq

L

ike its neighbor Iran, Iraq is one of the modern-day countries that make up the “Cradle of Humanity.” A large part of Iraq consists of desert, but the area that lies between the two major rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, is very fertile. The north of the country is largely mountainous and Iraq has a small coastline of approximately forty km along the Persian Gulf. Iraq became a British mandate at the end of the World War I and was subsequently granted independence from British control in 1932. The British-installed Hashemite monarchy ruled until 1958, before being overthrown through a coup d’état by the Iraqi army. This event became known as the 14 July Revolution and it brought Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim’s leftist government to power. Qassim withdrew from the Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union. This government lasted for five years (1958–1963) until it was itself overthrown. Colonel Abdul Salam Arif assumed power but died a year later and was succeeded as President by his brother, Abdul Rahman Arif, who was in turn overthrown in 1968 by the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. Saddam Hussein became the key figure within the Ba’ath Party and became President of Iraq in 1979 when he took control of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), Iraq’s supreme executive decision-making body. Saddam Hussein’s ascension to the leadership was not bloodless and Hussein had many of his opponents killed, a methodology that became a hallmark of his rule. There are several important events and issues in Iraq’s recent history that have impacted on its relationship with the United States. These include the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s handling of its Kurdish population, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, the UN sanctions on Iraq and Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program. All of these culminated in the

106

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party, and the current occupation of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing. These issues and events will be examined in closer detail in the following pages. It was during the eight-year war with Iran that Iraq first used its chemical weapons. It is estimated that 100,000 Iranians were exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons during the war. In its Resolution 620, the 1988 UN Security Council condemned the use of nerve gas agents and mustard gas against Iran during the conflict. The war was disastrous for Iraq. It stalled economic development, disrupted oil exports, which had traditionally provided 95 percent of Iraq’s foreign exchange earnings, and left Iraq with a very large debt to its Arab backers, including US$14 billion to Kuwait. It was this huge war debt, amongst other reasons, that contributed to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Support by the West for Saddam Hussein and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was no secret. The Soviet Union, France, Britain, West Germany, and the United States all provided military support and even components of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program. In fact on the same day that the UN released a report that Iraq had used Mustard gas and Tabun nerve agents against Iranian troops, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein. The United States believed at the time that Saddam Hussein was the lesser of the two evils, and thus explains U.S. efforts to support him both during the eight-year war with Iran and afterward. Iraq did not just receive arms from the West but also dual-use technology. This includes such items as ultra-sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and so on that have potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now acknowledged that a large number of U.S. companies continued to supply Iraq right up until August 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam Hussein had been a strong ally of the United States throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This changed very suddenly on August 2, 1990 when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. Kuwait had been a staunch ally of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and was a major financier of Iraq. Nevertheless, following the end of this eight-year war Iraq and Kuwait had several disagreements, which culminated in Kuwait being invaded by Iraq. Iraq justified this invasion for several reasons that included that Kuwait was in fact traditionally an Iraqi province; Kuwait had been slant drilling in the Rumaila oil field of which four-fifths belonged to Iraq and only one-fifth to Kuwait; Kuwait had been pumping oil from this same field throughout the Iran-Iraq War, while Iraq had

The Republic of Iraq

●

107

not, and therefore was taking more than its fair share; and that Kuwait was waging economic warfare against Iraq by exporting more than its OPEC quota, which was keeping oil prices low and subsequently costing Iraq millions and millions of dollars. Although Saddam Hussein maintained that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave tacit approval for his invasion of Kuwait, relations between the United States and Iraq rapidly deteriorated. Iraq’s refusal to withdraw from Kuwait led to the UN authorizing, under Resolution 678, a coalition of thirty-four countries, led by the United States, to remove Iraq from Kuwait and reinstate the Kuwaiti monarch. The United States undertook Operation Desert Shield, which was designed to protect Saudi Arabia from an attack from Iraq, and in January 1991 the United States, with backing from the UN, led a coalition to remove Iraq from Kuwait called Operation Desert Storm. Operation Desert Storm was an air campaign that was followed in February 1991 by Operation Desert Sabre, the ground component of the attack. By March 1991, Operation Desert Farewell began, which involved moving over half a million U.S. troops out of the Persian Gulf region, although U.S. troops remained stationed in Saudi Arabia. Once this objective had been achieved the UN forces called a ceasefire on April 3, 1991, which allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power. Many since 1991 have questioned this foreign policy decision, but both President Bush and his Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated that it was a wise one. In his 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush wrote: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post–Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome.1

108

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The presidency of George H.W. Bush was to some extent a continuation of the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Bush had served two terms as Vice President under Reagan and was very much an asset to the Reagan Administration with his previous experience with the United Nations, the CIA, and China. From the outset of his Presidency Bush focused on foreign policy much more than Reagan had done. In his Inauguration Speech, Bush emphasized freedom, the end of dictatorships and totalitarian governments, and the belief that change was imminent. 2 This forecast proved to be correct with the end of Communism and the Cold War occurring in 1991. Under Bush, the United States led the United Nations coalition in the 1991 Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion. Immediately after the war, Bush’s popularity was at a personal all-time high but as the U.S. economy continued to be in recession his popularity fell. Despite some success at the Madrid Conference on the Arab/Israeli conflict, Bush’s credibility with the public continued to falter after he raised taxes despite having made an infamous pledge to not institute any new taxes: My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes, but I will. And Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again. And I’ll say to them: Read my lips: No new taxes.3

This led to the public voting him out of office after just one term and Bush left office with a job approval rating of only 56 percent. Following the war, no-f ly zones were established to protect the Kurdish and Shiite minorities in the North and South respectively, whose revolts against Saddam had not been supported and had collapsed. These areas were patrolled by the United States and UK in the eleven years following the war with allied bombing occurring nearly every second day. There were also two sustained bombing campaigns in these areas in September 1996 during Operation Desert Strike and December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. One of the truly interesting findings of this research into Iraq in Hollywood film is that before 1991 Iraq had never played a leading role as a “baddie” in a Hollywood film. However, in 1991 Iraq, and Iraqis were portrayed as terrorists, chemical and nuclear weapons users, and Muslim extremists in at least four Hollywood films. Blink of an Eye, Cover-Up, Eve of Destruction, and Hot Shots all have Iraq and Iraqis as

The Republic of Iraq

●

109

the villains or baddies. This emergence on the Hollywood villain list happened at exactly the same time as Iraq was deemed as the “baddie” in U.S. foreign policy. It is clearly a case of Hollywood latching onto, and using, the latest Rogue of U.S. foreign policy as the villain. This could occur for several reasons, including that it gives the film a “current” and up-to-date feeling to be fighting the newest villain on the block. After so many years of using the Russians as the nemesis it was nice for Hollywood to have a new adversary. It could also be that to some degree, as Robb suggests,4 the Pentagon has some influence with the producers of the films and that favors and assistance can be given in return for toeing the current Administration’s position. It is pertinent to look at the first few films that depict Iraq, its leader Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi people as the baddies and to analyze what these films are proclaiming. It is then possible to analyze the development of the “Rogue Iraq” genre over time in addition to looking at the various approaches used by the different Administrations. The comedy Hot Shots! (1991) can be classed in the comedy-spoof genre and is a parody of countless other Hollywood films. The plot sees Topper Harley, a top gun fighter pilot, being recalled to serve on the USS Essess. Topper’s mission is to destroy Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plants. Some of the previews for the film (jokingly) claimed that Saddam Hussein’s role was played by Hussein himself, but it was actually played by Jerry Haleva, who has portrayed Hussein in several other Hollywood films. In the final moments of the film, a bomb falls into Saddam Hussein’s lap and explodes, killing him and destroying his nuclear facilities. This film is a slapstick comedy that lampoons Arabs in general but specifically sets up Hussein as the villain and enemy of the United States. It is a particularly inf luential film that made US$10,848,182 in its opening weekend and it is now considered a “cult classic” that is shown repeatedly on television and also spawned a successful sequel. What is interesting about this film is the way that Hussein is just offered as the villain to the audience with no apparent need to explain to the audience why he is the enemy or why he should be killed in dénouement. Cover-Up (1991) and Eve of Destruction (1991) did not have the boxoffice success that Hot Shots enjoyed but nevertheless they were two films that immediately jumped on the bandwagon of using the new enemy of the United States as their villain. Cover-Up is an action film that has a U.S. military installation in Israel attacked by “a religious extremist group [from] Baghdad.” The group, called “Black October,” steals a secret package that contains nerve gas that can “kill fifty

110

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

thousand people—minimum.” The group is based in Iraq but is said to have links to Shiite Muslims and the PLO and be funded by Libya, Iran, and Syria. The group is labeled as “maniacs” and the “biggest terrorist group we’ve ever seen.” The film is not particularly impressive in plot or execution but the themes and ideas of the film are very enlightening. What is also interesting to note is that this film was made in Israel and portrays the close alliance of United States and Israel, particularly when united by a common enemy. Eve of Destruction is different from the two previous films in that it only mentions Iraq in passing. The plot is that Eve, a robot that includes a nuclear bomb, gets damaged during testing and becomes a killing machine on the loose in the city. When the U.S. military is faced with getting the blame for the civilian deaths as a result of this debacle they propose blaming the “Iraqis or Libyans. Whoever’s on top of your shit list.” In the action film Blink of an Eye (1991) Michael Pare stars as Sam Browning, a super soldier who has psychic powers. The Iraqis are portrayed as terrorists who want to steal plutonium. They abduct the daughter of the Director of the CIA, blow up a plane over Cyprus, use poison gas on a Kurdish village and torture Browning in a jail. In the end the United States triumphs and the Iraqis are defeated. Throughout the film the Iraqis are referred to as “terrorists” and “assholes” and are portrayed as being inept and slow-witted. Blink of an Eye was filmed in Israel and Israelis play all of the main Iraqi and Kurdish characters. *

*

*

Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait the United Nations passed Resolution 660 condemning the invasion and demanding immediate troop withdrawal. On August 6, 1990, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 661, which imposed rigorous economic sanctions on Iraq until it withdrew from Kuwaiti territory. This resolution provided for a full trade embargo (excluding medical supplies, food, and other items of humanitarian necessity). Following Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, in compliance with Resolution 660, Resolution 661 (on sanctions) that became linked to Resolution 687, and called for Iraq to destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction before the sanctions would be lifted. These heavy sanctions continued until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.5 The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on weapons inspection was established to monitor Iraq’s compliance on restriction

The Republic of Iraq

●

111

regarding WMDs and ballistic missiles. The UN also established an “Oil For Food” Program (OFFP) that enabled Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil in exchange for food and medicine. Neither of these programs worked as originally anticipated. UNSCOM was withdrawn from Iraq with Saddam Hussein alleging that it was a front for espionage and covert CIA operations, which the United States admitted to be true and the OFFP was made ineffectual by the restriction placed on it regarding dual-use technologies. UNICEF reported that in 1998 an additional 90,000 people died each year as a direct result of the sanctions.6 The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in May 1994 that stated Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning “disease producing”), toxigenic (meaning “poisonous”), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.7

The report details at least seventy shipments, including some containing anthrax, from the United States to Iraq over a three-year period. The report states that the micro-organisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program. Following the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi government began a process of exterminating the troublesome Kurdish population that was living in Northern and Southern Iraq. This became known as the an-Anfal campaign and resulted in the death of at least 50,000 Kurds, many of them women and children. It is believed that chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents were used during this period. Although the international community stated that the Iraqi government had committed Human Rights Violations it did nothing, at the time, to stop the operation or to help the Kurds. However, it was this act by Iraq that was used as part of the justification for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Aside from the dubious allegations of Iraq’s relationship with al-Qaida, the Iraqi government did have relationships with other militant organizations in the Middle East including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is known that the Iraqi government gave money to the families of suicide bombers.

112

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Washington has stated that there were links between Saddam Hussein’s government and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose organization has taken credit for kidnappings and beheadings directed against the U.S. occupation of Iraq. This is unlikely, however, as Zarqawi had settled in Kurdish northern Iraq (an area not controlled by Saddam Hussein’s government) where he joined the terrorist organization Ansar al-Islam, which was an enemy of the Ba’athist government. Iraq’s relations with the United States, as well as the UN and the United Kingdom remained poor since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. The UN Security Council could not reach a consensus on whether Iraq had fully complied with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire, and so both the UN and the United States enforced numerous economic sanctions against Iraq throughout the Clinton administration. The United States continued to patrol Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones and it was during this period that the U.S. Congress also passed the “Iraq Liberation Act.”8 In fact, George W. Bush campaigned in the 2000 Presidential elections on a platform that called for the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act. Following the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the resultant War on Terror and the emergence of the Bush Doctrine of preemption, the relationship between the United States and Iraq took a new turn. Although there was no established relationship9 between al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein or the events of September 11 and Saddam Hussein, the United States adopted the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. The Bush Administration justified the invasion on three main grounds that included 1. Iraqi production, and possible use, of weapons of mass destruction; 2. Iraq’s links with terrorist organizations, particularly al-Qaida; and 3. Human Rights violations under Saddam Hussein’s government, such as the al-Anfal Campaign. American public opinion of Iraq has improved since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Figure 6.110 shows this trend. This is despite the fact that fewer and fewer Americans continue to support the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq, as shown in Figure 6.2.11 There are two Hollywood films that really stand out during the years between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The first is Courage under Fire (1996), which stars Denzel Washington and

% of respondents

The Republic of Iraq 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

●

113

1991 1992 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 All Favorable

All Unfavorable

2005

2006

Figure 6.1 American opinion of Iraq

% of respondents

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003

2004

Favor

Oppose

Figure 6.2 American support of the US War in Iraq

Meg Ryan. It is about the pilot of a medivac helicopter, Captain Karen Walden, who died shortly before her crew was rescued after it crashed in Operation Desert Storm. Courage under Fire is the first major studio film to be released about the 1991 Gulf War and depicts the war as being very dangerous, chaotic, and unpredictable. Although many of the typical stereotypes remain, such as four American soldiers being able to decimate hundreds of Iraqis, it does highlight the dangers of “friendly fire.” This film is a series of f lashbacks in which Lieutenant Colonel Serling attempts to prove that Walden deserves to be the first woman ever to win the Medal of Honor. Whilst the film focused on

114

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

the story of Waldon and her fellow American soldiers it does depict the Iraqis as being the enemy and thus deserving of being blown up, mown down, and napalmed. The second film worthy of particular mention during this period is The Three Kings (1999), which stars George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Ice Cube. In the days immediately after the 1991 Gulf War, a group of American soldiers come across a secret Iraqi map, which discloses the whereabouts of a bunker where Iraq is storing stolen gold and treasure it plundered from Kuwait. The soldiers hope to steal the gold and keep it for themselves. When the soldiers arrive at the site, they discover that the Iraqi army is more concerned about persecuting its civilians than stopping them from stealing the gold. They find out that the civilians have been encouraged by the U.S. government to rise up and fight Saddam Hussein, but are facing certain execution because the U.S. military refuses to help them. The character Archie Gates states: Bush told the people to rise up against Saddam. They thought they’d have our support. They don’t. Now they’re getting slaughtered.

This incident creates a crisis of conscience for the American soldiers when they have to choose between stealing the gold or helping the civilians by escorting them to safety across the border into Iran. The film is an interesting change from the usual narrative in that it depicts some unsavory elements of modern-day warfare, such as unemployed reservists going to the Middle East for enjoyment fighting Saddam Hussein, who in turn uses gas attacks, electric shock torture, and other atrocities to fight the rebels. The film provides some insight into how nonAmericans view the United States and attempts to show people in Iraq as modern people without being patronizing. Even the Iraqi soldiers who are shooting at the Americans and gassing the civilians are shown as human beings. During this period there are also two spoof-comedy films that poke fun at the Iraqis and in particular Saddam Hussein. The first is the sequel to Hot Shots!, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993), in which Topper Harley is asked by the CIA to lead a rescue mission into Iraq, to rescue the last rescue team, who went in to rescue the last rescue team who went in to rescue hostages left behind after Operation Desert Storm. The sequel again shows Saddam Hussein being lampooned with him uttering lines such as “Now I will kill you until you die from it!” and “They’ve dicked with the wrong dictator.” It has to be acknowledged

The Republic of Iraq

●

115

that the film also pokes fun at the United States with Lloyd Bridges playing “Tug” Benson, who, despite clearly being a moron, managed to get elected President of the United States. The second film in the spoof-comedy genre during this period was Spy Hard (1996) with Leslie Nielsen and Nicollette Sheridan. The film shows Nielsen looking at a photograph of Saddam Hussein with an arms merchant who has links to a terrorist cell. It is completely superf luous to the story but immediately lets the audience know that the man in the photographs with Saddam Hussein must be a “really bad guy” if he associates with the Iraqi dictator. The Human Shield (1992) is the final film of note during the interwar years although it was not as successful at the box-office as the others mentioned it is singled out by Shaheen as one of the worst films ever made,12 featuring Arabs. The film centers on an ex-Marine turned CIA agent who was hired to train Iraqi soldiers to fight Iran during the Iraq-Iran War and who now returns to Iraq to free his brother who has been imprisoned there by a renegade Iraqi general. The film contains bad acting and a weak plot that is full of (by now) Hollywood clichés such as Iraqis using chemical weapons on other Iraqis, Iraqi soldiers shooting mothers who are holding their babies, and the raping and abusing of women. The Human Shield is not valid for examination in this book because it was filmed in Israel, although a major studio released it,13 but it is worth a mention because it was made straight after the end of the 1991 Gulf War and unlike the films that came a little later, such as Courage under Fire (1996) and The Three Kings (1999), it sees the war as being very black and white, and in the terms of good versus evil, with all the blame and responsibility leveled solely at Iraq. The film also makes many references to the Iraqi desire for chemical weapons. *

*

*

On March 20, 2003, the United States led the Coalition of the Willing14 into Iraq with the aim of overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party. The stated reason for the invasion was that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, despite UN inspection teams having found no evidence of any WMDs. It was claimed that Iraq was in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 and also posed a significant threat to the United States and its allies. Operation Iraqi Freedom (or Operation Iraqi Liberation [OIL] as it was originally known) was undertaken without the approval of the UN.

116

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Before the 2003 invasion, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq. Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq and long-time advocate of more thorough weapons inspections, stated that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Following the invasion and the absence of any WMDs being found in Iraq it is now widely believed that Iraq had almost completely destroyed its weapons programs, but sought to retain as much knowledge and information as it could so that, should sanctions ever end, the programs could start over quickly. As of September 2005, only small quantities of chemically degraded mustard gas had been found in old munitions. The United Nations report on March 2, 2004 from the weapons inspection teams stated that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction of any significance after 1994. Following the removal of Saddam Hussein’s government from power, the leadership void was filled by an interim U.S.-backed Provisional Authority, and then an interim government. On January 30, 2005, Iraq held elections to appoint a 275-member Transitional National Assembly. Under the UN, Coalition forces remain and are currently working to maintain order and create a stable society. After the war, information began to emerge about several failed Iraqi peace initiatives, including offers as extensive as allowing 5,000 FBI agents in to search the country for weapons of mass destruction, support for the U.S.-backed Roadmap For Peace, and the abdication of Saddam Hussein to be replaced under UN elections. An interesting and significant finding from the research of this book is that since the film The Three Kings in 1999, which was somewhat critical of the U.S. military involvement in the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, no major feature films have been made that showcase Iraq and Saddam Hussein as the villains. Since the events of September 11, 2001 it is likely that the focus on generic Islamic terrorism and militancy has overshadowed the threat from just a single Rogue State acting alone. The number of films relating to the threat of terrorism from the Middle East and North Africa has increased during this period but Iraq has not been linked by Hollywood to this increased threat. It is interesting to note that the Bush Administration made the connection between September 11, 2001 and the acts perpetrated by al-Qa’ida to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. However, the Hollywood film industry has shied away from following suit for several reasons, perhaps the most important and inf luential being the backlash the Bush Administration has received for doing so.

The Republic of Iraq

●

117

During this time of Hollywood film vacuity there has, however, been a plethora of documentaries and made-for-TV specials about the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation. These programs on the whole tend to question the legitimacy of the U.S. foreign policy action in relation to the basis for the invasion and the continuing occupation. The most prominent and popular of these documentaries is the award winning documentary by Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) that questions the legitimacy of the election of George W. Bush to the presidency, his links to the Saudi Royal family and the bin Laden family, the War on Terrorism and invasion of Iraq in 2003. The success of this feature film led to dozens of other “exposés” such as The Control Room (2004), Weapons of Mass Deception (2004), and Truth, Lies and Intelligence (2005). It is not in the purview of this book to examine these works in depth but it is important to note that in relation to Iraq, it appears that since the events of September 11, 2001, Hollywood has refrained from engaging in such a controversial topic as Iraq and left that task to the documentary makers and political analysts. With the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, by the United States, it could be argued that Iraq is no longer a Rogue State. On the other hand, the continuing insurgency in Iraq against the occupying forces is intense and unlikely to end for years or perhaps decades. Saddam Hussein, and Iraq, was the ally of the United States for many years and this was reflected in Hollywood film with no pejorative representations until 1991 following Iraq’s fall from grace. During the Clinton Administration, and the U.S. foreign policy period of Dual Containment, Iraq rose to prominence as a villain and featured in many Hollywood Action Films as the “baddie” and lampooned in Comedies as being ridiculous. Following the 2001 attacks on the United States by al-Qa’ida, Iraq has once again been put on the backburner in Hollywood film in favor of “safer” villain options such as the number one Rogue State of choice in 2005: North Korea. North Korea in Hollywood film will be examined in detail in the next chapter.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 7

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

A

t the end of World War II in 1945 Japanese rule of Korea came to an end. Korea was then occupied by the Soviet Union north of the thirty-eighth parallel and by the United States south of the thirtyeighth parallel. However, the United States and the Soviet Union were unable to agree on implementation of Joint Trusteeship over Korea, which in 1948 led to the establishment of separate governments in both the north and the south, each claiming to be the legitimate government over all of Korea. Growing tensions between the governments in the north and south eventually led to the Korean War, when on June 25, 1950 the Korean People’s Army of the north crossed the thirty-eighth parallel and attacked. The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command and Korean People’s Army and the Chinese People’s Volunteers signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement. The demilitarized zone, or DMZ separated the two countries. The DMZ extends for 2,000 meters on either side of the military demarcation line (MDL). Both the North and South Korean Governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border. Kim Il Sung governed North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. After his death, his son Kim Jong-Il was named General Secretary of the Korean Workers’ Party in October 1997 and in 1998 the legislature reconfirmed him as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the highest office of state. The Korean Workers Party (KWP) follows and upholds the ideology of Juche, or self-reliance, which originally grew out of Stalinism. Like the former Soviet Union, a party bureaucracy that claims to represent the will of the people dominates North Korea. In 1977 the KWP replaced

120

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

mentions of Marxism-Leninism in the North Korean constitution with Juche. It is commonly accepted that the nation’s regime is a totalitarian dictatorship. Kim Jong-Il is head of the KWP and the military. Kim holds several official titles, the most important being General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chairman of the National Defense Commission and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army. Within the country he is commonly known by the affectionate title of “Dear Leader” whilst his father, Kim Il Sung, held the title of “Great Leader.” International relations between North and South Korea have by and large improved. During former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s 1994 visit, Kim Il Sung agreed to a first-ever North-South summit. The two sides went ahead with plans for a meeting in July 1994 but had to shelve it because of Kim’s death. The North-South summit finally went ahead in June 2000. However, tensions with the United States have recently increased when North Korea resumed its nuclear weapons program. North Korea’s economy has stagnated since the 1970s. The government refuses to release economic data, hence limiting the amount of reliable information available. Publicly owned industry produces nearly all manufactured goods. The government continues to focus on heavy military industry. The government is estimated to spend around 25 percent (in 2005) of the nation’s GDP on the military. North Korea sees itself not as a Rogue State but as a state whose external support system rapidly and traumatically disappeared a decade ago. A state confronted by hostile neighbors who wish to undermine its regime and that are heavily armed for possible military actions against it. A state whose limited ability to participate in the global economy is confined to selling abroad for harder currency the few things that it does well: military equipment, including missile technology.1 The Soviet Union supplied the economic and military aid that enabled North Korea to mount its invasion of the South in 1950. Soviet aid and influence continued at a high level during the Korean War and the Soviet Union was largely responsible for rebuilding North Korea’s economy after the cessation of hostilities. In 1961, North Korea concluded formal mutual security treaties with the Soviet Union (since inherited by Russia) and China, which have not been formally ended. For most of the Cold War, North Korea followed a policy of equidistance between the Soviet Union and China by accepting favors from both while avoiding a clear preference for either. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

121

Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea’s relations with its two major Communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il Sung’s 1984 visit to Moscow, there was a dramatic improvement in Soviet-DPRK relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of advanced Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid. The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1992 put a serious strain on relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in Communist aid to North Korea. *

*

*

Following World War II issues developed over the establishment of a Korean national government. The Soviet Union and Korean authorities in the North refused to comply with the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 resolution on elections and blocked entry of the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea into the North. Despite this refusal, elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948 the Republic of Korea was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a Korean nationalist leader, became the Republic’s first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea headed by Kim Il Sung, known for his anti-Japanese guerrilla activities in Manchuria during the 1930s. Both administrations claimed to be the only legitimate government on the peninsula. After the establishment of the two states, South Korea experienced several violent uprisings by indigenous, pro-North Korean leftist guerrillas. As Soviet troops left in late 1948 and U.S. troops in the spring of 1949, border clashes along the thirty-eighth parallel intensified. North Korean forces invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. This was only possible because the Soviet Union temporarily boycotted the Security Council in protest over the fact that the Chinese seat at the Security

122

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Council was held by the (Nationalist controlled) Republic of China. Had the Soviet Union been present at the meetings it would certainly have vetoed the resolution, as it was firmly favoring the North Korean cause. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort. The battle line f luctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese “People’s Volunteers” intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the thirty-eighth parallel. Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 1953. The armistice called for an international conference to find a political solution to the problem of Korea’s division. This conference met at Geneva in April 1954 but after seven weeks of futile debate ended without agreement or progress. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact and thus a condition of belligerency still exists on the peninsula. While there have been many U.S.-produced documentaries and television shows since the Korean War none have been more famous, influential, or popular than the Academy Award winning Hollywood film MASH (1970). Starring Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Tom Skerritt, Sally Kellerman, and Robert Duvall, MASH was a groundbreaking film that spawned a thirteen-year television series. 2 Director Robert Altman made many films during the 1970s that opposed the traditional Hollywood narratives and provocatively critiqued “The American Dream.” MASH is his most famous work, a seemingly chaotic black comedy, about a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, the 4077th, during the Korean War. MASH defied conventions and broke barriers.3 The film not only attacks religion but the belief in God itself and makes a very effective antiwar statement. The film is less about the Korean War in particular than the horrors of war in general. Comedy is used by the doctors of the MASH as a method of relieving the stress associated with the tragedy that they see every day as a result of the atrocities on the battlefield. The theme song to the film (and the television series) is called Suicide Is Painless and was reportedly written by Robert Altman’s son when he was fourteen. The lyrics are a reference to the war in Vietnam and the Draft. If you were drafted, or enlisted, in the 1960s and sent to Vietnam you were being sent to your death. So the act of enlisting or being drafted was “painless” but essentially “suicide” at the same time. The song is played during the opening sequence while the doctors, nurses, and orderlies silently rush to relieve the helicopters of their human cargo. It is exceptionally effective, and immediately gives the audience

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

123

a sense of the 4077th MASH unit. The song is repeated again during the film when the dentist Walter “Painless” Woaldowski commits suicide because he thinks he may be homosexual. The film is closely associated with the Korean War but also with the overarching concept that the United States really had no business in fighting wars overseas for other countries, including Vietnam and Korea. *

*

*

In August 1971, North and South Korea agreed to hold talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. After a series of secret meetings, both sides announced on July 4, 1972, an agreement to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. However, these initial contacts broke down and ended in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung Hee’s announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations and after the kidnapping from Tokyo of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-Jung by the South Korean intelligence service. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984. Dialogue was renewed on several fronts in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North’s offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-South Korea “Team Spirit” military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief f lurry of negotiations on cohosting the 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 K AL f light 858 bombing. In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae Woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, interKorean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh’s proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight Prime Minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in

124

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Seoul, beginning an especially fruitful period of dialogue. The Prime Ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the “Basic Agreement”) and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the “Joint Declaration”). The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, and calling for reconciliation and nonaggression established four joint commissions. These commissions on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange were to work out the specifics for implementing the general terms of the basic agreement. The process came to a halt, however, because of rising tension over the nuclear issue. The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initiated on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides to test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated with verification of the denuclearization of the peninsula. On January 30, 1992, North Korea also signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when acceding to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the joint declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime. As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North’s nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the joint nuclear declaration’s provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-South Korea Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly in January 1993 when North Korea refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the DPRK that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters. On May 14, 2005 South Korea announced that at the North’s request to the Ministry of Unification, the two countries would resume talks after almost a year on May 16 in the border city of Kaesong.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

125

Two nuclear crises have occurred on the Korean peninsula, one in 1993–1994, the other in 2002–2003. In both instances the events were strikingly similar in that North Korea made public its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The situation then rapidly deteriorated until the peninsula was literally on the verge of war. It has been argued that in both these instances it was Washington’s inability to see North Korea as anything but a threatening Rogue State that seriously hindered both an adequate understanding of the situation and the possible resolution of the conflict.4 Beginning in 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks among the most concerned parties aimed at reaching a settlement through diplomatic means. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and North Korea. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003. After this meeting, North Korea then agreed to six-nation meetings, between the six countries most involved in the area: The United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia. The first round of talks was held in August 2003, with other rounds in the following years. During the August 2003 round of talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral “nonaggression treaty” and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue, and refused to provide benefits or incentives for North Korea to abide by its previous international obligations. In October 2003, President Bush said he would be willing to consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea’s complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program. It has been suggested that North Korea’s nuclear weapons capability does not pose a serious threat to international security and in fact the threat has been largely exaggerated by the United States. It has been argued that the primary motive for North Korea’s nuclear capability is defensive and really a strategic deterrence posture. That said, it is widely agreed that the possible transfer of fissile material to terrorist groups or Rogue States is a possibility.5

126

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

In early 2005, U.S. government told its East Asia allies that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. This backfired when the Asia allies discovered that the U.S. government had concealed involvement of Pakistan, a key U.S. ally was the middleman. The latest round of talks occurred in July 2005, when North Korea agreed to yet another round of talks after listing key demands. North Korea called for a peace treaty with the United States, ahead of the resumption of talks aimed at ending the stand-off over its nuclear weapons. Many believe that diplomacy has failed in relation to the nuclear disarmament of North Korea and that there are only two remaining options. The first is to undertake preemptive strikes to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear program. This option, however, is risky and fraught with uncertainties. It would also increase the likelihood of full-scale war on the peninsula. The second option is to simply accept North Korea’s nuclear capability as a fait accompli. 6 Since the success of MASH in 1970 there have been no significant Hollywood films with relevance to North Korea until 2002. Die Another Day (2002) is the James Bond film that focuses on North Korea as the enemy. The film begins in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, moves onto Iceland via Hong Kong, Cuba, and London before the final dramatic confrontation back in Korea. The plot has James Bond being assigned to a rendezvous with a North Korean army officer, Colonel Moon, in relation to his investigation of a North Korean terrorist, Zhao. This mission goes horribly wrong and Bond is captured and subjected to sadistic North Korean torture. The film then gets involved in gene therapy and world dominance. As mentioned previously, Bond films are renowned for ref lecting the current state of the world, and in 2002 Bond producers felt that the current villains in world affairs were the North Koreans. The film does not refer to WMD or terrorism specifically but they are demonized without that used as support. The torture of Bond, which is the first “real” torture he has ever experienced is ghastly and very “un-Bond” like. What is particularly interesting is that the main charge against North Korea by the United States is being involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other typical Rogue State activities. *

*

*

Korean Air Flight 858 was a flight that f lew from Abu Dhabi International Airport in the United Arab Emirates to Gimpo Airport

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

127

near Seoul, South Korea via Bangkok International Airport in Thailand. On November 29, 1987, it mysteriously disappeared. According to the South Korean authorities, the flight took off from Abu Dhabi and was f lying to Bangkok on the way to Seoul. Two passengers who departed from the plane at Abu Dhabi left a radio and liquor bottle containing explosives in an overhead rack on the airplane. The bomb exploded while the plane was over the Andaman Sea near Thailand. Radar contact was lost at the time of the explosion. All 11 crewmembers and 104 passengers on Korean Air 858 were killed, making it the deadliest terrorist attack against South Korea. South Korean officials arrested two North Korean agents shortly after the bombing. One killed himself with a suicide pill but the other, Kim Hyun Hee, was captured. She told investigators that the bombing was ordered by Kim Il Sung’s son, Kim Jong-Il. The story against North Korea reinforced the country’s place on the U.S. terrorism supporters list. North Korea has made several statements condemning terrorism. Most recently, on October 6, 2000, the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) issued a Joint Statement in which the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms. The United States and North Korea agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines f light to North Korea in 1970. Relations with Japan have also long been strained by the abduction of Japanese students during the 1970s and 1980s for intelligence purposes. In December 2002, at the request of the United States, Spanish troops boarded and detained a shipment of Scud missiles from North Korea destined for Yemen. After two days, the United States released the ship to continue its shipment to Yemen. This further strained the relationship between the US and North Korea, with North Korea characterizing the boarding an act of piracy. In March 2003 North Korea’s long suspected revenue-raising exercise of narcotics exportation was highlighted with the Australian seizure of the Pong Su, a North Koreanowned cargo vessel that had been used to smuggle over 100 kilograms of heroin into Australia. Reports by Amnesty International and other various human rights organizations and foreign governments regularly accuse the North Korean government of failing to protect the human rights of North

128

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Koreans. North Korea receives particular criticism for its policy of preventing citizens from leaving the country freely. North Korea is officially atheist, although it has a Buddhist and Confucianism heritage, with Christian and traditional Chondogyo communities. Some state-sanctioned churches exist today although many human rights groups believe that this is not any indication of religious freedom for the population and suggest that the services sometimes held during foreign visits are fake. Citizens of South Korea require special government permission from both governments to enter North Korea. North Korea joined the NPT as a nonnuclear weapons state in 1985, and North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in a 1992 Denuclearization Statement. However, lack of progress in developing and implementing an agreement with the IAEA for the inspection of the North’s nuclear facilities led to North Korea’s March 1993 announcement of its withdrawal from the NPT. A UN Security Council resolution in May 1993 urged North Korea to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all member states to encourage North Korea to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution of the nuclear issue. North Korea’s ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction to a hypothetical target is somewhat limited by its missile technology. As of 2005, North Korea total range with its No Dong missiles is only 1,300 km, enough to reach South Korea, Japan, and parts of China and Russia, but not to the United States or Europe. It is not known if this missile is actually capable of carrying the nuclear weapons that North Korea has so far developed. North Korea has also developed the Taepo Dong 1 missile, which has a range of 2,000 km, but it is not yet in full deployment. With the development of the Taepo Dong 2 missile, with an expected range of 5,000–6,000 km, North Korea could hypothetically deliver a warhead to almost all countries in South East Asia, and parts of Alaska. Ex-CIA director George Tenet has claimed that the Taepo Dong 2 could deliver a small payload even to the western parts of the mainland U.S. states although with low accuracy.7 North Korea is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons. It reportedly acquired the technology necessary to produce Tabun and mustard gas as early as the 1950s, and now possesses a full arsenal of nerve agent and other advanced varieties, with

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

129

the means to launch them in artillery shells. North Korea has expended considerable resources on equipping its army with chemical-protection equipment. North Korea acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987, the Geneva Protocol in January 1989, but has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. In 1994 ex-President Jimmy Carter went to North Korea at the behest of President Clinton during a period of rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula that were caused by North Korea’s expulsion of IAEA investigators and the threat to begin processing spent nuclear fuel. Carter met with North Korean President Kim Jong-Il resulting in the signing of the Agreed Framework, under which North Korea agreed to freeze North Korea’s nuclear program in return for high-level talks with the United States. The 1994 Agreed Framework also involved the provision of light-water reactors; normalization of US-DPRK relations; and assurances that the United States would not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against North Korea. 8 Following the inauguration of President George W. Bush in January 2001, the new Administration began a review of North Korea policy. At the conclusion of that review, the Administration announced on June 6, 2001 that it had decided to pursue continued dialogue with North Korea on the full range of issues of concern to the Administration, including North Korea’s conventional force stance, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues. However, a document leaked in March 2001 showed that the U.S. government was willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. North Korea argues that its nuclear weapons program is no more than a valuable deterrent against aggression by the United States. In 2002, the Administration also became aware that North Korea was developing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons purposes and U.S.-North Korean tensions increased when Bush categorized North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union address. In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment, quit the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea subsequently announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and policy toward North Korea. The 2002 inclusion of North Korea by the Bush Administration in the “Axis of Evil” was a shift from the Clinton Administration policy of

130

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

engagement. North Korea’s inclusion on the list made it a possible target for U.S. containment and preemption. However, some have argued that North Korea’s chief motive in such weapons development might actually be to guarantee regime survival.9 President Bush has claimed that the United States has no plans at this time to invade North Korea now or in the foreseeable future. He also claimed that the United States intended to make every effort to achieve a peaceful end to North Korea’s nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea’s neighbors, who have also expressed concern over the threat to regional stability and security they believe it poses. The Bush Administration’s claimed goal is the complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. North Korea’s neighbors have joined the United States in supporting a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula. When U.S.-North Korean direct dialogue resumed in October 2002, this uranium enrichment program was high on the U.S. agenda. North Korean officials acknowledged to a U.S. delegation, headed by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the existence of the uranium enrichment program. Such a program violated North Korea’s obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Declaration and the 1994 Agreed Framework. The United States stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-North Korean relations. The U.S. side also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, the United States would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. However, in accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. government eased economic sanctions in response to North Korea’s decision to freeze its nuclear program and cooperate with United States and IAEA verification efforts. Though the Agreed Framework negotiated by Jimmy Carter was widely hailed at the time as a diplomatic achievement, it soon became apparent that despite their promises to Carter, North Korea had no intention of stopping its nuclear weapons program. On February 10, 2005, North Korea declared that it had nuclear weapons, bringing widespread expressions of dismay and near-universal calls for North Korea to return to the sixparty negotiations aimed at curbing its nuclear program. In June 2005, the United States announced that it would give 50,000 tons of food aid to North Korea having given 50,000 tons in 2004

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

131

and 100,000 tons in 2003. On September 19, 2005, North Korea was promised food and fuel aid (amongst other things) from South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia, and China in exchange for abandoning its nuclear weapons program and rejoining the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. It remains to be seen if this exchange will actually occur. The agreement was less than one day old before issues arose with its implementation. One of the few Hollywood films that has recently featured North Korea is the highly controversial Team America: World Police (2004) from the creators of the notorious television show South Park. Inspired by Gerry Anderson’s classic Thunderbirds of the 1960s, Team America uses marionettes as the actors in a political satire. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the producers, are obviously fed up with terrorist hysteria, along with the liberal Hollywood elite, and try to offend all groups on the political spectrum. Team America are an international police force dedicated to maintaining global stability and they fight terrorism whenever and wherever it is suspected. On finding out that power hungry North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il is out to destroy the world, the team recruits a Broadway star Gary Johnston to go undercover. With the help of Team America, Gary manages to slip into an arms dealer’s hideout in Cairo to uncover the plan to destroy the world. The plan is that Kim Jong-Il has been selling his WMDs to the highest bidder in hopes of ruling the world and Kim Jong-Il plans to unleash “9/11 times 2,356.” The film lampoons everyone associated with the War on Terrorism. Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, suffers a fruitless encounter with the North Korean dictator; Michael Moore is running around strapped with explosives; Janeane Garafalo gets her head blown apart; Alec Baldwin is leading the Film Actors Guild (FAG); and the United States is generally portrayed as one big dumb bully that is armed to the teeth and willing to use their firepower. The most outrageous parody is saved for Kim Jong-Il who is given a very thick accent and some appalling dialogue. He is called an “asshole” by Team Americans, made out to be a Martian from the “Planet Xiron,” his accent is mocked by the other characters, he shoots his translator in the head, and he is linked to arming Middle Eastern terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.10 It is interesting that the Hollywood version of Kim Jong-Il is so derided, as in North Korea, there is a vast personality cult built up around Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong-Il, and much of North Korea’s literature, theater, and film deal with praising and glamorizing various exploits of the two men and their life stories.

132

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The United States also receives criticism at the hands of Team America. A Middle Eastern character calls the Americans “infidels” for going into Iraq in 1991 in their “Blackhawk helicopters” and setting the oil fields on fire and then leaving. He says: “As quickly as they had come, the infidels were gone. It was on that day I put a jihad on them.” The character of Sean Penn later says: “Last year [2002] I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place.” A news reporter also states that “Team America has once again pissed off the entire world by blowing up half of Cairo.” Team America: World Police leaves no boundaries uncrossed in its vilification of U.S. foreign policy. It views the world’s enemies as being North Korea and Middle Eastern terrorists and the United States itself. There are several interesting and significant findings when examining North Korea and its place in U.S. foreign policy and its portrayal in Hollywood film. It can be clearly seen that mainstream Hollywood has by and large steered clear of using North Korea in film, but of the three films in the country that are featured, it is portrayed as being “the enemy” and “the other.” There are several possible reasons for this occurrence. First, there are other more threatening and dominant enemies that Hollywood can pursue, such as Iraq. Iraq as the enemy or villain requires less explanation to the audience and thus less of the film needs to justify why that country is a “baddie” and more time can be spent on other areas of the plot. Second, although North Korea has been on the fringes of Roguedom since the Clinton Presidency, it has really only come to the fore since 2002 when it was designated a member of the Axis of Evil by George W Bush. Third, and perhaps most important, the main bone of contention between the United States and North Korea, weapons of mass destruction, has largely been ignored by Hollywood. However, in relation to the other Rogue States, such as Libya and Iraq, weapons of mass destruction have been used extensively by Hollywood as reason for justifying their villain status. Why this is so interesting is that North Korea is in fact a nuclear power whereas Libya and Iraq are not! There are several possible reasons for this finding. Perhaps, vilifying a “real threat” could lead to “real consequences” whilst vilifying and exaggerating a “nonreal threat” will not lead to any significant ramifications. Or perhaps something more sinister is at work here. Perhaps, Hollywood is working to promote and justify U.S. foreign policy toward countries that really do not warrant the Rogue status afforded them. Perhaps Hollywood is being used as an instrument to convince

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

●

133

the American public of the “evil” ways of the Rogue States such as Cuba and Libya that do not truly merit their reputation as Rogues. Whereas in the case of North Korea, it does in fact have weapons of mass destruction, and has proudly and publicly declared this fact. Thus Hollywood is not needed to perform this role for them and so Hollywood can spend its time on promoting the other Rogues who are not so helpful in “outing” themselves as the “bad guys.”

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 8

The Republic of Sudan

T

he Republic of Sudan is the largest country in Africa. It is considered by many to be part of the Middle East and North Africa region due to its geographic location and its historic associations. It is perhaps best considered as the bridge between the Middle East and Africa, being bordered by Libya, Egypt, the Red Sea, Chad, the Central African Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and the Congo. Most importantly for the purposes of this book, it is considered by the United States to be a Rogue State of the Middle East. Historically, Sudan has a colonial legacy not dissimilar from that of its Middle Eastern neighbors. Originally Sudan was known as Nubia and was home to the Kingdom of Kush,1 which was heavily influenced by pharaonic Egypt. Interestingly, the Napata conquered Egypt and ruled as the Pharaohs of the twenty-fifth dynasty and built the Nubian pyramids. During the first millennia the people of the Sudan became increasingly Islamic and Arabic. Sudan became the center of the slave trade market with many slaves being sent to America. However, during the 1870s European attitudes toward the slave trade changed. This coupled with the exploitation and maladministration by the Ottomans, caused an economic crisis in southern Sudan. Muhammad ibn Abdalla proclaimed himself the Mahdi (the “expected one”) in 1881 and began a religious movement to unify the tribes in western and central Sudan. The Mahdi led a nationalist revolt culminating in the fall of Khartoum in 1885, where the British General Sir Charles George Gordon was killed. The Mahdi died shortly thereafter, but his state survived until 1898 when it was besieged by an AngloEgyptian force under Lord Kitchener. Sudan was then proclaimed a condominium under British-Egyptian administration, but northern and southern Sudan were administered as separate colonies. In the very early 1920s, the British passed the Closed Districts Ordinances that

136

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

stipulated that passports were required for travel between the two areas and that permits were required to conduct business in the other zone. By this time the two zones had totally separate administrations. The separation of Sudan into North and South was not just administrative but linguistically and religiously based as well. In the south, English, Dinka, Bari, Nuer, Latuko, Shilluk, and Azande were official languages, whilst in the north Arabic and English were used as official languages. In the south, Islam was discouraged and Christian missionaries were permitted to work. The British began preparing the north for self-rule and in 1943 established the North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudan provinces.2 The south, however, was earmarked for integration into Britain’s African colonies. However, in 1946 the British colonial authority reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the 1947 Juba conference that they would now be governed by a common administrative authority with the north. Many southerners felt betrayed by the British because they were largely excluded from the new government. The language of the new government was Arabic, but the bureaucrats and politicians from southern Sudan had, for the most part, been trained in English. The political structure in the south was not as organized in the north, and were not adequately represented at the various conferences and talks that established the modern state of Sudan. There are only two films featuring the Sudan that standout as the best known and most enduring. These are Sudan (1945) and Khartoum (1966). The most famous of these films is Khartoum, which, not surprisingly given its vintage, was made by the United Kingdom. Although Khartoum is outside the self-imposed constraints of this book an exception will be made as it is the most distinguished film about Sudan and in relation to the era in which it was made, and also in relation to the other film, Sudan, it is imperative it be examined. The film Sudan was directed by John Rawlins and made in 1945. The plot involves a young, beautiful girl, Naila, who becomes Queen of the ancient Egyptian kingdom of Khemis when her father is killed in a slave revolt. Naila decides to disguise herself and seek out the rebel leader, Herua, and exact her revenge. Unfortunately, she is captured and enslaved but is rescued by Herua with whom she falls in love. This film, made at the end of World War II, says nothing directly in terms of U.S. foreign policy and Sudan. However, it represents several stereotypical views of Sudan such as Sudan is a dangerous place for women who are alone;

The Republic of Sudan

●

137

Sudan is violent and oppressive toward women; slaves are commonplace in Sudan; and the leaders of Sudan rule through violence and oppression. It is these stereotypical characteristics of Sudan that endure in the minds of the audience even though this film is essentially a love story. The 1966 classic British epic Khartoum, which stars Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier and was directed by Basil Dearden, is based on the 1885 massacre of British and Egyptian forces in Khartoum. As an historical oeuvre it is considered by many to be one of the finest and thus is pertinent for inclusion in this chapter. Heston plays the English General Charles “Chinese” Gordon, who is a devout Christian and a hero as a result of his exploits in China where he abolished slavery.3 British Prime Minister Gladstone had decided not to send troops to the troubled area4 but instead chose to send General Gordon who he appoints as military governor of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Gladstone did this because he realized that if Gordon failed to prevent a massacre in Khartoum, then Gordon would be blamed and not the British government. Whilst en route to Khartoum, Gordon discovers to his surprise that most of Britain’s allies now support The Mahdi, played by Laurence Olivier. Once in Khartoum, things do not go as planned. Gordon is ordered to evacuate all the Egyptians from Sudan and then Gordon decides to remain behind to protect the people of Khartoum. However, the city runs out of food and then The Mahdi’s men infiltrate the city and kill Gordon. As with many of the popular “historical films,” of which Khartoum is one, the history is condensed and simplified. The meeting between Gordon and Gladstone never took place and neither did the meeting between Gordon and The Mahdi. Gordon and The Mahdi did, however, correspond at length. Both scenes in the film are examples of history being altered to create a dramatic effect. The contrast between Christian and Muslim is continually emphasized throughout the movie and the film highlights the classic confrontation between Western Imperialism and Eastern Islamic fundamentalism. Khartoum also gives insight into the inner workings of the British political system during the Victorian era, which when viewed today has strong parallels to the U.S. government under the Bush 43 Administration. *

*

*

The United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination in 1953 and Sudan achieved independence on January 1, 1956, under a provisional

138

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

constitution. The United States was among the first foreign powers to recognize the new state. Unresolved issues from the north-south segregation under British colonial rule caused tensions when the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system. This led to a rebellion by the southern army officers that triggered seventeen years of civil war from 1955 to 1972. The Sudan had a series of governments during this period that proved unable to agree on a permanent constitution or to cope with problems of factionalism, economic stagnation, and ethnic dissidence. Military coups were common and it wasn’t until the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement that brought about an end to the civil war and some degree of self-rule. Following the end of the civil war, Sudan became more pro-Western, and started to export food and cash crops. Unfortunately, at the same time commodity prices declined. This continued throughout the 1970s causing increasing economic problems for Sudan. In 1978 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) negotiated a Structural Adjustment Program with the Sudanese government to further promote the mechanized export agricultural sector. However, this caused great economic problems for the pastoralists of Sudan that led to the Ansars (followers of the Mahdi), under their leader and descendant of the historical Mahdi, Sadiq al-Mahdi, to mount a bloody but unsuccessful coup attempt in 1976. Following a decade of relative political stability the civil war reignited in 1983 following the government’s Islamization policy, which would have instituted Shari’a Law. In 1989 the government offered a compromise to the south and it appeared the war would end. However, a military coup brought a junta into power that was not interested in compromise and the war has continued to rage across Sudan. The civil war has displaced more than four million southerners and malnutrition and starvation is widespread. The lack of investment in the south has resulted in an entire generation who lack educational opportunities, access to basic health care services, and have little prospects for productive employment in the small and weak economies of the south or the north. All sides have been accused of atrocities in this war although most of the blame has fallen on Arab militias that are allied with the government. The rebels contend that these militias have been engaging in ethnic cleansing. Peace talks between the southern groups and the government made substantial progress in 2003 and early 2004, although skirmishes in parts of the south have reportedly continued. The two sides have agreed

The Republic of Sudan

●

139

that, following a final peace treaty, southern Sudan will enjoy autonomy for six years, and then the people of southern Sudan will be able to vote in a referendum on independence. Oil revenues will be divided equally between the government and rebels during the six-year interim period. The ability or willingness of the government to fulfill these promises remains to be seen and the status of three central and eastern provinces remains a point of contention in the negotiations. One of the most significant features of Sudan’s foreign policy has been its solidarity with other Arab countries, for example, during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Sudan declared war on Israel also. Although in the early 1970s, Sudan gradually shifted its position and supported the Camp David Peace Accords. By the late 1990s, Sudan experienced strained or broken diplomatic relations with most of its nine neighboring countries. However, since 2000, Sudan has actively sought rapprochement that has rehabilitated most of these regional relations. The only country neighboring Sudan with which relations have remained strained is Eritrea and this is due mainly to Eritrea’s active support of armed rebellions in the East and West of Sudan. Relations between Sudan and fellow Rogue State, Libya, began to deteriorate in the early 1970s and reached a low in October 1981, when Libya began a policy of cross-border raids into western Sudan. In 1985 Sudan resumed diplomatic relations with Libya, as part of a policy of improving relations with neighboring Arab states. In early 1990, Sudan and Libya announced that they would seek “unity.” During the 1990s, Sudan sought Western aid and rapprochement with Arab states, and maintained cooperative ties with other “Rogue States” including Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea. Sudan has a history of support for regional insurgencies such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Eritrean Islamic Jihad, Ethiopian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Lord’s Resistance Army. There have also been allegations of the Sudanese government’s complicity in the assassination attempt against Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, in Ethiopia in 1995. It was these allegations that led to UN Security Council sanctions against Sudan. Following his expulsion from Saudi Arabia in 1991, Osama bin Laden sort refuge in Sudan until his expulsion in 1996. Sudan expelled bin Laden following threats of UN sanctions for harboring bin Laden after his complicity in the attempt on Mubarak’s life. Sudan has traditionally relied on a variety of countries for its arms supplies. After independence the army had been trained and supplied by

140

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

the British, but after the 1967 Six-Day War relations were cut off with the British and also with the United States and West Germany. Thus from 1968 to 1972 the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations sold Sudan large numbers of weapons and provided technical assistance and training. Quantities of tanks, aircraft, and artillery were also acquired at this time. Relations cooled between Sudan and the Soviets after the 1972 coup and Khartoum sought to diversify its suppliers. The Soviet Union continued to supply weapons to Sudan until 1977, when Soviet support of Marxist elements in Ethiopia angered the Sudanese sufficiently to terminate their deals. China then became the main supplier of weapons in the late 1970s. However, Egypt was the most important military partner in the 1970s, providing missiles, personnel carriers, and other military hardware. It was during the mid-1970s that Western countries again began supplying Sudan with weapons. The United States began selling Sudan a great deal of equipment around 1976, hoping to counteract Soviet support of the Marxist Ethiopians and Libya. Military sales peaked in 1982 at US$101 million but after the start of the Second Civil War, American assistance dropped, and was eventually stopped in 1987. Recently, Sudan has bought a variety of military equipment from various sources and received Mi-24 attack helicopters from Russia. During the long-running Civil War Khartoum generally sought older, less expensive conventional weapons that nonetheless offered more advanced capabilities than the weapons of its opponents and their supporters in neighboring countries. The United States has f lagged its concerns that Sudan might seek a ballistic missile capability in the future.5 According to the CIA, Sudan has previously aspired to having a chemical weapons program but is now working with the United States to reconcile concerns about its past attempts to seek capabilities from abroad. It was during the trial regarding the al-Qaida bombings of the American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, in February 2001, that a government witness, Jamal Ahmad Fad, testified that al-Qaida pursued the sale of enriched uranium in Sudan in the early 1990s. Sudan faces formidable economic problems. It has been implementing International Monetary Fund (IMF) macroeconomic reforms since 1997 and in 1999 began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus. This, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate. The increased oil production, revived light industry, and expanded export processing zones have helped sustain GDP growth at 6.1 percent in 2003.

The Republic of Sudan

●

141

Agriculture production remains Sudan’s most important sector, employing 80 percent of the work force and contributing 39 percent of GDP. However, this is facing several problems including drought, the chronic instability from the Civil War, and weak world agricultural prices. *

*

*

President Clinton ordered air strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in response to the alleged threat they posed to U.S. national security. The transcripts of President Clinton’s speeches from Martha’s Vineyard6 and the Whitehouse can be found verbatim in the Appendix I. These speeches by President Clinton clearly demonstrate that the United States views Sudan as a country that sponsors terrorism, harbors terrorists, and produces chemical weapons. It also highlights the fact that Sudan is a country, which America has singled out as a Rogue State that is worthy of a military attack. Another very interesting and pertinent point about these speeches is that they bear a striking resemblance to the speech given about Libya by the fictional President in The American President in 1995. As mentioned in chapter 5, the character of President Andrew Shepherd in the film appears to be modeled on President Clinton, and to have what appears to be the real American President copying the reel American President is a pertinent finding indeed. The fact that in the film the Rogue being bombed was Libya rather than Sudan makes little difference to the justification used for the action. Since the release of Sudan (1945) at the end of World War II, Hollywood seemingly ignored Sudan until the turn of the century. Perhaps it was the widespread success of the British Khartoum in 1966 that overwhelmed Hollywood or perhaps it was that in the eyes of producers there were more interesting countries to focus upon. This ties in with the United States’ foreign policy relations with Sudan, which was also muted during this time compared to its relations with other countries. The film The Four Feathers (2002) is the most recent remake7 of the novel by A. E. W. Mason. Set in the Sudan in 1898, the story follows a British officer, General Harry Faversham, who resigns his post the day before his regiment ships out to battle the rebels. Taking his resignation as a sign of fear, his friends and his fiancée give him four white feathers, which is the symbol of cowardice. The film then follows Faversham on a quest to redeem his honor. The Four Feathers film is

142

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

an epic tale of courage during war. It harks back to the era in which war was romanticized in film. This is no doubt due to the fact that it is based on the pre–World War II era. It is interesting that Hollywood chose to remake this particular film in 2002, which coincides with the U.S. war in Afghanistan and the lead up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. It is the romanticization of war in “yesteryear” in this film that is in direct contrast to the horrors of war today. During the 1898 war in Sudan the army was seen to be filled with “gentleman officers,” not the brash, young, ill-trained and undereducated recruits of the army today, which is the pervasive media image following such incidents as the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison. The tagline for the 2002 version of The Four Feathers is “Freedom. Country. Honor. Passion. To save his best friend, one man must risk everything he loves.” This really sums up the way in which Hollywood would like the world to view war, rather than the real 2002 version in which war is often viewed as illegitimate and without honor. Lost Boys Of Sudan (2003)8 and The Art of Flight (2005)9 are two film-length documentaries that feature the Sudan, but neither was made by Hollywood and both give a harsh critique of the American “empire.” There are no other Hollywood films that feature the Sudan. This is a significant finding itself. It appears that Sudan has never really been on the mainstream Hollywood radar other than for a handful of films that romanticized the glorious days of the British in Sudan in the nineteenth century. Despite the fact that the U.S. foreign policy elite views Sudan as a Rogue State, worthy of bombing, and a “basketcase,” it has been ignored by the American film industry. There is a possible reason for this and it has to do with the way Sudan, and the Mahdi, are viewed by many (black) African Americans. It is an important and interesting element that many African Americans, who do not hail from Sudan, feel an affinity for Sudan. This is perhaps because many African Americans are searching for a black leader who has stood up to, and defeated, the “white men.” The Sudanese Mahdi fills this role perfectly. In fact many African Americans visit the Sudan looking for their “roots,” which are of course not in Sudan, but what they hope to find by visiting Sudan is some understanding about what made the Mahdi so special and different and in what ways they can emulate him. It is perhaps in this context, with Sudan being a “home” for the blacks of America, that it can be seen why Hollywood has chosen to ignore Sudan in favor of other areas.

CHAPTER 9

The Syrian Arab Republic

S

yria like its neighbors and fellow Rogue States, Iran and Iraq, is part of the Cradle of Humanity. Syria was the center of one of the most ancient civilizations on Earth, the great Semitic empire, which stretched from the Red Sea, north to Turkey, and east to Mesopotamia from 2500 to 2400 BC. Many different groups including the Canaanites, the Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Ottoman Turks have occupied Syria. At the end of World War I, Ottoman control over Syria came to an end and an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria was established under King Faysal, of the Hashemite family, who later became the King of Iraq. His rule in Syria ended in July 1920 when French forces entered Syria to impose their mandate from the League of Nations. During World War II, Syria came under control of the Vichy Government from 1940 until July 1941 when the United Kingdom and Free French occupied the country. Syrian nationalist groups forced the French to evacuate their troops in 1946 and Syria came under the control of the republican government that had been formed during the mandate. Like many of its neighbors, Syria went through a period of political instability from the end of World War II until the mid-1960s. A series of military coups, from 1949 onward, led to instability until a short-lived union with Nasser’s Egypt in 1958 as the United Arab Republic brought a brief respite. Another military coup in 1961 ended the unification of Egypt and Syria and Syria reestablished itself as the Syria Arab Republic. A series of further coups ended with the instatement in 1963 of a group of military and civilian officers. This coup was carried out by Syrian Army officers of the National Council of the Revolutionary Command (NCRC), but masterminded by members of the Arab Socialist Resurrection Party, or Ba’ath Party. This followed on

144

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

from the Ba’ath coup in Iraq the previous month that eventually led to the rise of Saddam Hussein. The Syrian Ba’athist government explored the possibility of another alliance with Egypt and with its Ba’athist neighbor Iraq. The tripartite federation failed to develop but Syria and Iraq began to work for a bilateral unity. This coalition fell apart in less than a year after another coup, this time in Iraq. Following the Arab defeat in the 1967 at the hands of the Israeli’s, Syria entered another period of political turmoil that culminated with the bloodless coup in November 1970 led by the Syrian Minister of Defense Hafez al-Assad. Assad quickly consolidated his power and control and formalized his rule. Syria is an unusual country in the complex field of U.S. foreign policy interactions, in that it is the foreign relations of Syria, rather than Syria itself, that has been the focus of U.S. interest. It is therefore important to examine in detail Syria’s relations with its neighbors, Israel and Lebanon. Following the 1967 War, Syria “lost” the Golan Heights to Israel. Syria invaded the Golan Heights in 1973 as part of the Yom Kippur War and despite initial successes the end result was that Syria only retained control of a small region of the Golan and Israel was left in occupation of additional Syrian territory. As a result Syria had little choice but to accept UNSC Resolution 338,1 which by its nature implied an acceptance of Resolution 242. 2 UNSC Resolution 242 later became the basis for the peace process negotiations begun in Madrid and called for • A just and lasting Middle East peace to include withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967; • Termination of the state of belligerency; and • Acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all regional states and of their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. In 1974 Syria and Israel concluded a disengagement agreement enabling Syria to recover territory lost in the 1973 War and part of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since 1967, including Quneitra. The two sides have effectively implemented the agreement, which is monitored by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which has been patrolling a buffer zone there since 1964. However, in 1981 Israel decided to extend Israeli law to the part of the Golan Heights over which Israel retained control. The UN Security

The Syrian Arab Republic

●

145

Council passed a resolution calling on Israel to rescind this measure. It was perhaps Syria’s participation in the UN coalition against Iraq in 1991 that pinpointed the defining moment in Syria’s relations with the West, in particular Israel, and with its Arab neighbors. Syria participated in the 1991 Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid and through the 1990s engaged in negotiations with Israel, although these negotiations were unsuccessful, and there have been no further Syrian-Israeli talks since the outbreak of the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000. Tensions between Israel and Syria increased as the Intifada continued as a result of Syria’s reluctance to stop giving refuge to Palestinian terrorist groups conducting operations against Israel. Following a suicide bombing carried out by a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in Haifa in October 2003 that killed 20 Israeli citizens, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) attacked a suspected Palestinian terrorist training camp 15 km north of Damascus. This was the first Israeli attack deep inside Syrian territory since the 1973 war. Syria continues to call for a comprehensive settlement based on UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 and the land-for-peace formula adopted during the Madrid Conference. Until 1926 Lebanon was part of post-Ottoman Syria. The presence of troops from the Syrian Arab Republic in Lebanon dates back to 1976, when President Assad intervened in the Lebanese Civil War. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Syrian and Israeli forces clashed and Syrian opposition blocked implementation of the 1983 Lebanese-Israeli accord on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. In May 1991, Lebanon and Syria signed the treaty of brotherhood, cooperation, and coordination, which was called for in the Taif Accord. This was intended to provide the basis for many aspects of Syrian-Lebanese relations and the treaty provided a clear recognition by the Syrian Government of Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty. The UN declared that Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon fulfilled the requirements of UNSC Resolution 425.3 However, Syria and Lebanon claimed that Resolution 425 had not been fully implemented because Israel did not withdraw from an area of the Golan Heights, called Shebaa Farms, which had been occupied by Israel since 1967, and which Syria subsequently claimed was part of Lebanon. The UN rejected this claim, however; Lebanese resistance groups such as Hezbollah use it to justify attacks against Israeli forces in that region. After intense international pressure, President Bashar al-Assad announced that Syria would complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon, which was completed on April 26, 2005 after a twenty-nine-year occupation.

146

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

After almost thirty years in power, Hafez al-Assad died on June 10, 2000. Following his death, the Syrian Parliament amended the Constitution, reducing the compulsory minimum age of the President from forty to thirty-four years old. This allowed Hafez al-Assad’s son, Bashar al-Assad, to be eligible for nomination for the Presidency by the ruling Ba’ath Party. Bashar al-Assad was elected President, on July 10, 2000, unopposed. In his inauguration speech Bashar al-Assad promised both political and democratic reform. Syria and the United States have had a tumultuous relationship. In part this has been inf luenced by the state of Syria’s relations with Israel and Lebanon. However, the United States and Syria have been in direct confrontation such as in 1984, when Syria held US Navy Lieutenant Robert C. Goodman Jr., captive after his plane was shot down over Lebanon. Goodman’s release was secured, not through diplomatic efforts, but by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Following Goodman’s release U.S. forces bombed Syrian targets in Lebanon. However recently, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Syrian government began limited collaboration with the United States in the War on Terror. Although Syria supported the United States during the 1991 Kuwait War, President Bashar al-Assad’s government sided with Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and as a result relations with the United States quickly deteriorated.4 A comparison of the gains Syria enjoyed for supporting the United States during the Kuwait war and its losses for antagonizing the United States during Operation Iraqi Freedom reveals Syria’s inability to make rational strategic calculations. It has been said that the case of Syria validates the Bush Doctrine’s underlying assumption that Rogue States make poor cost-benefit decisions and take irrational risks.5 Further, the behavior of Syria contradicts the Bush Administration’s belief in its “inverted domino theory” that victory in Iraq will cause the rest of the Middle East to move in the political direction of the United States.6 The U.S. policy toward Syria is focused on four main “threats.” The first is that the United States believes the Syrian regime has continued in its attempts to acquire sophisticated surface-to-surface missiles. The second arises from U.S. intelligence officials concerns that the Syrian government has become custodian to Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons. The third concern is that Syria may have benefited from the work of Abdul Qadir Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who sold nuclear secrets to a number of Rogue States. Finally it is believed by the United States that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is involved with international terrorism.7

The Syrian Arab Republic

●

147

The U.S. Congress passed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which provides for the imposition of a series of sanctions against Syria if Syria did not • • • •

Cease its support for Palestinian terrorist groups; Cease its military and security presence in Lebanon; Cease its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; and Meet its obligations, under the U.S. interpretation, of United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.

President Bush determined that Syria had not met these conditions and in May 2004 implemented sanctions that prohibit the export to Syria of items on the U.S. Munitions List and Commerce Control List, as well as the export to Syria of U.S. products except for food and medicine. The sanctions also prohibited the taking off from, or landing in, the United States of Syrian government-owned aircraft. The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced its intention to order U.S. financial institutions to sever correspondent accounts with the Commercial Bank of Syria based on money-laundering concerns. 8 President Bush also authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to freeze assets belonging to certain Syrian individuals and government entities. The 1984 Cold War film First Strike is possibly the first film from Hollywood9 to depict Syria. The title is apt, being Hollywood’s first strike at Syria, and takes the attitude that Syria is an iniquitous state linked to the Russians. The plot has the Soviet Union planning to take control of Syria in order to gain control of all Middle Eastern oil. The Russians get special “codes” from the Germans in order to take charge of a U.S. submarine and launch a “first strike” against Syria pretending to be Americans. Syria responds by annihilating 90 percent of the U.S. f leet with Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) but in the end the Russians have to agree to a cease-fire with the United States. The plot is very dubious but the message of the film is quite obvious: Syria is a potential proxy of the Soviet Union that has and will use weapons against the United States. The Syrians are labeled as “fools” and portrayed very much as the “cat’s paw” of the enemy. The film also explores the significance of Middle Eastern oil in the context of the Cold War. Since the 1960s Syria has produced heavy-grade oil but in the 1980s, light-grade, low-sulfur oil was discovered in eastern Syria. This relieved Syria of the need to import light oil to mix with its domestic heavy crude in refineries. Syria’s oil reserves are small compared to those of many

148

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

other Arab states although its petroleum industry accounts for a majority of the country’s export income. The government has recently begun to work with international energy companies to develop Syria’s promising natural gas reserves, for both domestic use and export. The U.S. energy firm, ConocoPhillips, completed a large natural gas gathering and production facility for Syria in 2000. Syria also had some success in attracting U.S. Petroleum companies, such as Devon Energy, for exploration.10 According to the U.S. State Department Syria is a sponsor of terrorism. Syria provides both moral and logistical support to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah and hosts a number of other militant antiIsrael Palestinian groups. Syria considers these groups to be genuine national resistance groups, which are struggling to end Israel’s illegitimate occupation of their lands. According to Dr. Murhaf Houejati, Adjunct Professor at George Washington University and Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Institute, in his testimony to the Third Public Hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,11 one of the greatest irritants in U.S.-Syrian relations is that this assistance is both good and bad in its effects. On one hand the militant Palestinian groups have served to check Yasser Arafat’s Fatah faction and Syria has used these groups to prevent Arafat from adopting a separate stance that might weaken the Arab front against Israel. On the other hand, however, Syria has used these groups to derail diplomatic initiatives that failed to take Syrian interests into account, such as the Golan Heights. Although there is no substantiation that Syria provides material, or financial assistance, to these groups, Washington argues that Syria by allowing terrorist groups to engage in business and other money-making activities that allow them to finance and sustain their operations, it is tantamount to direct assistance. However, Syria has time and again denied militant Palestinian groups the right to use Syrian territory as a base from which to launch operations against Israel. This policy is part and parcel of the broader policy of adhering to the terms of the disengagement and cease-fire agreements from 1974. Washington believes though that leaders of the Syria-based militant Palestinian groups moved out of Syria voluntarily and into Lebanon in order to save Syria’s face and to alleviate the recent anti-Syrian pressures emanating from the United States. It should be noted that other than militant Palestinian groups, Syria does not permit any politically motivated organization to operate on its soil. In relation to Hezbollah, which operates from bases in the southern Lebanon, Syrian officials deny assisting Hezbollah and it is widely

The Syrian Arab Republic

●

149

agreed that the degree of Iranian inf luence over Hezbollah seems to be greater than that of Syria. Since September 11, 2001, Syria has been one of Washington’s closest partners in the war on international terrorism, specifically against al-Qaida. For example, it was Syrian intelligence that warned Canadian and U.S. authorities of a planned al-Qaida attack against Canadian government institutions. Syria also provided information on September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, who worked on an engineering project in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo in the mid-1990s. Further cooperation came as Damascus also supplied information on Ma’mun Darkazanli, a Syrian businessman who allegedly served as a financial conduit to al-Qaida members. Furthermore, Syrian officials have avoided arresting suspects so they can continue to monitor their conversations and movements and report back to the United States. Dr. Murhaf Houejati suggests that the Syrian government is cooperating with the United States in the War on Terror to highlight the distinction between “terrorism” and “legitimate national resistance to foreign occupation.”12 The other reason for Syrian cooperation is to improve Syrian relations with the United States. It has been suggested that if Israel were to withdraw its forces from the territories it has occupied since 1967, Syria would disband all anti-Israel groups operating within its borders. The Muslim Brotherhood led an armed insurgency against the Assad regime from 1976 until its suppression in 1982. It was the brutal suppression of the Brotherhood that led to the consolidation of the regime. Following the Ba’athist military coup in 1963, the new regime made itself very unpopular by severely restricting political freedoms, favoring atheism over Islam, and concentrating power in the hands of the military and the country’s Alawite minority, whilst marginalizing the Sunni majority. The Brotherhood represented the strongest opposition to the regime and in 1964 and 1965, the Brotherhood organized strikes and mass demonstrations throughout Syria. When Hafez al-Assad, seized power in 1973 and proposed a Constitution that did not require a Muslim to be the President, the violent demonstrations broke out again. Following Syria’s intervention in the 1976 Lebanese Civil War, the Brotherhood began targeted assassinations of members of the Syrian regime and prominent Alawites. In 1979, the Muslim Brotherhood carried out an attack on an artillery school in Aleppo, killing eighty-three Alawite cadets. The government responded to this by sentencing the perpetrators to death for belonging to the Islamic resistance movement. Following this sentencing, terrorist attacks became a daily occurrence.

150

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The Muslim Brotherhood, in conjunction with other groups, organized a series of protests in the days leading up to the seventeenth anniversary of the Ba’athist coup on March 8, 1980. The Syrian government responded by overwhelming military force, sending in troops, supported by tanks and helicopters. Hundreds of protesters were killed and 8,000 were arrested. The Brotherhood then tried, but failed, to assassinate President Assad in June 1980. The military retaliated by killing between 500 and 1,100 prisoners, who were mostly Muslim Brothers or allied with them, in the prison of Palmyra. This did not become public knowledge until January 1981, when some of the soldiers who had carried out the massacre were arrested in Jordan for attempting to assassinate the Jordanian Prime Minister who the Syrian government had accused of supporting the Brotherhood. Rifat al-Assad, the President’s brother, stated that the government was prepared to “sacrifice a million martyrs” (over a tenth of Syria’s population at that time) in order to stamp out “the nation’s enemies.” On July 7, 1980, the government passed a law making membership in the Brotherhood punishable by death. This did not stop the Brotherhood, and in August, September, and November 1981, the Brotherhood carried out three car-bomb attacks against government and military targets in Damascus. On February 2, 1982, the Brotherhood led a major insurrection in Hama, rapidly taking control of the city and the military responded by bombing Hama (whose population was about 250,000) throughout the rest of the month, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 people. The tragedy of Hama marked the defeat of the Brotherhood, and the militant Islamic movement in general, as a political force in Syria. Today, although its leadership is in exile, the Brotherhood continues to enjoy considerable support among Syrians. The Mehlis Report was released in October 2005 and is the result of the United Nations’ investigation into the February 14, 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. The report found that high-ranking members of the Syrian and Lebanese governments were involved in the assassination. The UN Security Council extended the investigation until June 2006. The consequences of this report are yet to be fully realized. The United States claims that Syria is a transit point for opiates and hashish that is destined for Western markets. This relates to claims by the United States that Syria’s weak antimoney-laundering controls and bank privatization leave it vulnerable to money-laundering, a by-product of the drug trade. The charge that Syria is involved in the illicit drugs trade is linked to its support and funding of terrorist groups.

The Syrian Arab Republic

●

151

Syria is a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Syria and Russia and have continued their long-standing agreements on cooperation regarding nuclear energy, although specific assistance has not yet occurred. Syria has a nuclear research center at Dayr Al Hajar. In relation to ballistic missiles, Syria has sought help from abroad to establish a solid-propellant rocket motor development and production capability. Syria’s liquid-propellant missile program depends on essential foreign equipment and assistance, primarily from North Korea. Syria also manufactures liquid-propellant Scud missiles and is developing longer-range missile programs such as a Scud D and possibly other variants with assistance from both North Korea and Iran. The CIA has reported that Syria has been seeking chemical weaponsrelated expertise from foreign sources and has a stockpile of the nerve agent, Sarin, and is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. Syria is dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its program, and is also continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability.13 Syria has acquired very limited quantities of advanced conventional weapons from Russia. This is due in part to Syria’s ongoing debt to Moscow, a relic from the Cold War, and the resultant inability of Syria to fund large-scale purchasing to replace its aging weapons inventory. *

*

*

A very significant finding on Syria and Hollywood film is in fact that there are very few films made by Hollywood that feature Syria. However, recently there has been a rise in films about Syria from outside Hollywood such as the United Kingdom that produced The Road to Damascus (2004), Denmark that produced To Damascus (2005) and a number of films produced by Canada including the well-known Paradise (1982), Damascus Nights (1998), and Damascus Road (1999). France, Germany, and Israel combined to make The Syrian Bride in 2004. One of the rare films made by the Hollywood that features Syria is the 1952 comedy adventure film Thief of Damascus. The film is about a young man, Abu Amdar, who gathers a group of friends to help battle an evil desert sultan. The sultan agrees to end his siege of Damascus if Princess Zafir promises to marry him. The film is an Arabian Nights fantasy featuring Aladdin, Sinbad, and Scheherazade. It is typical Orientalist fantasy and says naught about U.S. foreign policies relations toward Syria.

152

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Hollywood’s portrayal of Syria is not an adequate ref lection of U.S. involvement with Syria. The United States has been especially involved in all aspect of Syria’s interactions with its neighbors, Israel and Lebanon, since 1948. It is surprising to discover then that this is not ref lected at all by Hollywood. Syria seems to have fallen into the same chasm as the other Rogue States of North Korea and Sudan in relation to Hollywood film in that it is largely ignored and in the films in which it does feature, it is depicted as a Soviet proxy of the Cold War or an Orientalist caricature. It is interesting to note that unlike the earlier Rogue States of Iran, Libya, and Iraq, where the more they fell out of favor with the United States in real life the more they were depicted as the enemy in film, Syria and the more recent Rogues have largely been ignored. This finding and all of the other findings, which have emerged from the seven case study chapters, will be explored and analyzed in the next, and final, chapter of this book.

CHAPTER 10

Conclusion

I

t is true that a very fine line exists between the world of movies and the reality of U.S. foreign policy. This line is often blurred, especially in films that depict the President of the United States or members of the foreign policy elite, making policy toward another country. The last seven country case study chapters have examined in detail the historical relationship of the United States with each of the Rogue States and their portrayal in Hollywood film. Some significant findings have emerged through this examination and these findings will be drawn together in this final chapter, where the trends and themes that have emerged will be analyzed and discussed in detail. During the Cold War the enemy was always, and without doubt, the USSR. Since the collapse of the bipolar world system and the development of the Rogue State as the enemy, the role of the Rogue State countries in Hollywood film has changed and become more prominent. This book is not a quantitative study but rather a qualitative one. As such, the case study chapters have examined in detail the foreign policy of the United States toward individual Rogue States and the portrayal of these Rogue States in Hollywood Film. It is now appropriate to address the overarching questions of this book in relation to these case studies. The U.S. Department of State has named Iran, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria as being “the” Rogue States. Having examined the changing foreign policy stance of the United States toward each of these countries and the portrayal of these so-called Rogues States in Hollywood film, several trends and themes have emerged. Be fore these themes and trends are discussed it is important to brief ly revisit the key findings about each of the individual Rogue States. The Islamic Republic of Iran was the first Rogue State. It emerged over a decade before the collapse of Communism and the end of the bipolar world system. Notably but perhaps not surprisingly the

154

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

tumultuous relationship between the United States and Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the U.S. hostage crisis has not been ref lected in Hollywood film. This is a very significant finding as it refutes the central hypothesis of this book, that there is a direct correlation between the portrayal of Rogue States in Hollywood film and their place in U.S. foreign policy at the time. The most remarkable result that has emerged from the study of Iran is that none of the major U.S. foreign policy dealings with Iran has been turned into films. It is widely thought that Hollywood enjoys glorifying U.S. forays into the world but this is not the case when it comes to Iran. Perhaps it is because the United States has not really “won” against Iran. Despite the overthrow of Mossedeq in 1953 and the return of the hostages from the U.S. Embassy, the United States has on the whole been humiliated by Iran, and failed in its foreign policy objectives toward Iran. In this light, it is therefore not surprising that Iran is an anomaly and Hollywood does not want to draw attention to the state of U.S.Iranian relations in film. Any films about the 1979 Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis would only serve to draw attention to U.S. failings. Perhaps this is the real reason that the only films about Iran that Hollywood have made are those that “joke” about Iranian oil or recount a story of personal experiences in Iran that can be told without ref lecting the shortcomings of the United States. This is why none of the films that mentions Iran or Persia by name1 is “Political Film” that gains the legitimacy for U.S. policy statements by portraying members of the foreign policy elite. However, these films are still extremely influential and manipulate the perceptions and beliefs of U.S. citizens about Iran. Another significant finding relates to the commonly depicted oilrich sheikh genre of 1970s Hollywood film, which is often associated with the countries of the Middle East, including Iran. It is interesting that none of the films in this genre mentions Iran or Iranians by name! The Sheikhs are generally portrayed in these films as generic “Arabs” or “Middle Easterners.” Perhaps this is because during this time Iran was a “friend” of the United States, not an enemy. Another, perhaps surprising, discovery was that not all of the films portray Iranians as “baddies” or just as one-dimensional caricatures. The House of Sand and Fog humanizes its Iranian characters and at times contrasts them to the more unpleasant American characters. In short, the Islamic Republic of Iran is considered a Rogue State by the United States because of its anti-U.S. stance. Iran is portrayed in Hollywood film as a “baddie” but its demonization by Washington as

Conclusion

●

155

a Rogue State that supports terrorism and has nuclear ambitions is not supported by Hollywood. Instead Hollywood uses the time-honored technique of superficial portrayal and stereotyping. In 1992, Daniel Pipes wrote an article in National Review outlining how Iran and Iraq were “The Tarbabies of American Politics.” 2 He described how these two countries had “bedeviled” three American Presidents and predicted that this would continue as “even if you overwhelmingly vanquish the Iraqi tarbaby, it still sticks to you.” 3 During the course of writing this book there has been an increase in the level and intensity of U.S.-Iranian relations. This has centered on the plans by Iran to produce nuclear fuel in Iran. Iran advised the IAEA in writing on January 3, 2006 that it intended to resume nuclear fuel research and development on January 9, 2006.4 The tension increased when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a televised speech in which he declared the Holocaust a fabrication and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”5 The escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran continues to grow daily at the time of the publication of this book. The Republic of Cuba was historically portrayed in Hollywood film during the Cold War as a Soviet proxy. Following the collapse of Communism it was relabeled a Rogue State by the United States and Hollywood followed suit. There are two distinct categories into which Hollywood films about Cuba fall. The first are films that portray Cuba as a Soviet proxy of the Cold War era and the second are films that are set in the post–Cold War era where Cuba is no longer a Soviet station but rather a country that harbors, and exports, drug dealers, engages in money laundering and has significant links to terrorist groups. This second group of films is minor and often in these films Cuba is linked to other “baddies” in order to give the film more substance. Hollywood frequently portrays Cuba as being associated with the “baddies” rather than being the “main baddies” of the film. Perhaps this is in fact a true interpretation of U.S. foreign policy in that Cuba is not a Rogue State because of the threat it poses to the United States but rather because of its historical associations with the “bad guys” of world politics. In a statement announcing the return to full diplomatic relations with the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya released by the U.S. Department of State on May 15, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as stating that Libya is an important model . . . We urge the leadership of Iran and North Korea to make similar strategic decisions that would benefit their citizens. 6

156

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

According to this statement, the United States believes that Libya’s decision to renounce support for terrorism and eliminate its programs for weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles is a model that Iran and North Korea should emulate. Libya’s renewed diplomatic relations with the United States and removal from the U.S. list of terrorism sponsors is a result of the “decisions and actions of the Libyan government of the past seven years.” 7 Libya emerged as a Rogue State during the Reagan Administration and was considered a Rogue State by the United States for twenty-seven years. Libya, under the Qaddafi leadership, has been accused of having a history of rule-breaking behavior. It is charged with having violated international rules of state conduct by engaging in terrorism, threatening regional peace, pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and violating human rights. As a result, Libya suffered both unilateral and collective sanctions. Libya was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979. In 1981 the United States broke off diplomatic relations. The imposition of bilateral sanctions began in the mid-1970s and the UN imposition of multilateral sanctions in 1992. 8 Following its change in policy in relation to terrorism and WMD and its cooperation on the War on Terror, it appears that its redemption as a Rogue State is complete despite charges of ongoing abuse of human rights still being made.9 More than for any other of the Rogue States, Hollywood has both supported and promoted the U.S. foreign policy agenda in relation to Libya’s demonization. The role of Hollywood films in the building, strengthening, and proliferation of Libya’s reputation as a Rogue State has been clearly documented in chapter 5. The pervasiveness of this demonization through all genres and across all target audience groups, from teens through to seniors, is without parallel. Even in the films where villains really have no place, such as a love story or a time-travel film, Libyans and their evil ways are included into the plot. It is this continual bombardment of the general public by Hollywood with little snippets of Libya’s wicked behavior that has led to, and promulgated, Libya’s appalling reputation. An important finding, in support of the hypothesis of this book, is that as Libya’s status in U.S. policy changed so too did its portrayal in Hollywood film. When Libya became an enemy in real life, it also became an enemy on film. There was also a considerable decline in the portrayal of Libyan characters in Hollywood film since it was eclipsed as the “principal Rogue” by Iraq in real life. The change in status of Iraq from friend to Rogue State was accompanied by its subsequent

Conclusion

●

157

demonization by Hollywood and apparently Hollywood finds it hard to demonize more than one enemy at a time. Like U.S. relations with Iran, U.S. relations with Libya have changed significantly during the course of writing this book. Unlike Iran, however, relations with Libya have changed in a positive way. On March 12, 2004, President Bush declared: Earlier today, the Libyan Government released Fathi Jahmi. She’s a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy. It’s an encouraging step toward reform in Libya. You probably have heard Libya is beginning to change her attitude about a lot of things. We hope that more such steps will follow in Libya and around the world.10

This was followed by a visit from U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice to Libya to meet with Colonel Qaddafi in November 2005. On May 15, 2006, Rice announced the resumption of full diplomatic relations between the United States and Libya stating that they are “As a direct result of those decisions we have witnessed”11 and that it is . . . the beginning of that country’s re-emergence into the mainstream of the international community. Today marks the opening of a new era in U.S.-Libya relations that will benefit Americans and Libyans alike.12

Stephen Zunes believes that the most serious offense Libya committed was daring to challenge the U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.13 Perhaps now that Libya is cooperating with the United States is the reason it is no longer being labeled a Rogue State. A pertinent finding in relation to the hypothesis of this book is that while Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq were allies of the United States there were no pejorative representations of him, or his country, in Hollywood film. However, since the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm, and the shift of Iraq into Rogue State classification, the Iraqis have fared poorly in Hollywood films. The number of films released relating to Iraq significantly increased following the 1991 shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq and Hollywood found a new enemy to demonize. Not to mention that the personal demonization of Saddam Hussein as a villain became a Hollywood favorite. Following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq there have been no further Hollywood films about Iraq or Saddam Hussein. There has,

158

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

perhaps tellingly, also not been any Hollywood films featuring the 2003 invasion, subsequent occupation, or insurgency that followed. This may be another case where Hollywood is staying away from a “touchy” subject, as there is a considerable division in American opinion about the current situation in Iraq. Although the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a Rogue State and a “foundation” member of the Axis of Evil, Hollywood has tended to steer clear of portraying North Korea in film at all. In the three films in which it does feature, it is portrayed as being “the enemy,” and its leader, Kim Jong Il is demonized much like Saddam Hussein. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis of this book, in that an increase in negative U.S. foreign policy activity toward a Rogue State should correspond to an increase in its portrayal as a villain in Hollywood film. There are several possible reasons for this finding. First, there are more threatening and dominant enemies that Hollywood can pursue, such as Iraq, with which the United States has an ongoing war. Iraq as the enemy requires less explanation to the audience and thus less of the film is spent justifying why that country is the enemy and more time can be spent on other areas of the plot. Second, although North Korea has been on the periphery of Rogueness since the Clinton Administration, it has really only been highlighted since 2002 when George W. Bush designated it a member of the Axis of Evil. Another notable finding is that the main conf lict between the United States and North Korea, which is in relation to weapons of mass destruction, has largely been ignored by Hollywood. What is even more interesting is that North Korea is actually a nuclear power, perhaps the only Rogue State to be so. However, Hollywood has chosen to ignore this and prefers to demonize Libya and Iraq as nuclear weapons villains, even though they do not have nuclear weapons. There are several possible reasons for this alteration of the “facts” by Hollywood. It may be that vilifying a “real threat” could lead to “real consequences” whilst vilifying and exaggerating a “nonreal threat” will not lead to any significant ramifications. Alternatively something more sinister may be at work. Perhaps, Hollywood is working to promote and justify U.S. foreign policy toward countries, such as Libya and Iraq, which really do not warrant the Rogue status afforded them. Perhaps Hollywood film is being used as a medium to convince the American public of the “wicked” ways of the Rogue States, such as Cuba and Libya, which do not truly merit their reputation as Rogues. Perhaps the fact that North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction means that Hollywood is not needed to demonize them, as the U.S. foreign policy elite can do

Conclusion

●

159

that without help, and so Hollywood can spend its time demonizing the other Rogue States. The Republic of Sudan, which was bombed during the Clinton Administration and was a temporary home to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, has strangely been ignored by Hollywood. Other than historical films about the British in Sudan during the nineteenth century very few Hollywood films feature Sudan. The fact that there are no other Hollywood films that feature the Sudan is a significant finding itself. According to the hypothesis of this book, Sudan is a country that should be experiencing a current rise in its portrayal as villain. This is not the case. A possible explanation for this was explored in detail in chapter 8, but in essence it is that the affinity that many African Americans have to the Mahdi is translated as an affinity for Sudan. In this context, with Sudan being viewed as a “homeland” for the blacks of America, that it can be understood why Hollywood has chosen to ignore Sudan in favor of other Rogue States. Furthermore, Sudan is the poorest of the Rogue States, a “basket case,” and despite its links to terrorism is unlikely to be a credible threat to the United States. It remains a designated Rogue State merely as punishment for brief ly harboring Osama bin Laden. The Syrian Arab Republic is another case study, like North Korea and Sudan, where Hollywood’s depiction of Syria is not an accurate reflection of U.S. involvement. Hollywood has largely ignored Syria and in the few films in which it does feature, it is portrayed as a Soviet proxy during the Cold War or an Orientalist stereotype. As discussed in detail in chapter 9 this does not sufficiently convey Syria’s current and very prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It could be argued from this discovery that Syria is really the exception that “proves the rule.” Why is it that Syria is seemly so ignored by Hollywood when it is technically such a prominent U.S. enemy? Perhaps it is just too “indistinct” for U.S. audiences to recognize. Just another Middle Eastern Rogue State! Conceivably it could be some form of “vicious cycle” in that because Syria has never had the sustained propaganda campaign by Hollywood that Libya, Iran, and Iraq have had demonizing them, that this is the reason it is just too unrecognizable to be portrayed as a familiar enemy on film. *

*

*

Enemies are as much a part of Hollywood film as heroes. In fact, it is very difficult to have a hero without an enemy. Enemies fade in and

160

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

out of fashion. As this book clearly demonstrates, the old enemy of the Soviet Union has been replaced in reality, and in film, since the end of the Cold War. So who is the enemy of choice today? Libya has come and gone. So too has Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It seems now that rather than move on to the newer Rogue States of North Korea and Syria, Hollywood is taking a different route. Universal Studios has released United Flight 93 (2006) about the September 11 terrorist attacks and Oliver Stone is shooting a film on the same subject for Paramount Pictures. Meanwhile Columbia Pictures have optioned a book about the period between the crash of the first plane into the World Trade Centre and the collapse of the first tower. The new enemy in Hollywood today must be Islamic Extremists. Steven Spielberg, as always ahead of his time, released Munich in 2005 about events following the massacre of eleven Israeli’s at the 1972 Munich Olympics by Palestinian Extremists. Perhaps the role of the Rogue State as an enemy in Hollywood film is no longer necessary. This would perhaps explain, to some degree at least, why Syria, Sudan, and North Korea have escaped the overzealous vilification that Libya and Iraq endured at the hands of Hollywood. It has generally been the finding of this book that the U.S. foreign policy stance toward the Rogue States portrayed in Hollywood film has been in keeping with the current U.S. Administration. As with anything there are exceptions to this but on the whole friends are portrayed as friends and enemies are portrayed as enemies. Changes in U.S. foreign policy have also been consistently reflected in Hollywood film. As a friend changes into an enemy in real life so its portrayal in film changes with it. In particular with the first Rogue States, Iran, Libya, and Iraq, the more they fell out of favor with the United States in real life the more they were depicted as the enemy in film. However, the latter Rogue States of North Korea and Syria have largely been ignored. Although it has not been found that any Hollywood films preempted a Rogue State’s fall from grace, several Hollywood films have portrayed events that have later occurred. For example, the portrayal by Glenn Close of the female Vice President in Air Force One (1997) occurred the same year Madeleine Albright was appointed U.S. Secretary of State. This was the first time a woman was shown in a genuine position of power and decision making. Indeed some Hollywood films seem to be able to predict the future. In the 1996 film Executive Decision, a plane, hijacked by Arabs, is used as a weapon on Washington.14 In the 1998 film The Siege, troops are used to keep order after a terrorist attack in New York City, Arab-Americans

Conclusion

●

161

are rounded up and tortured for information, and civil liberties are infringed upon. Hollywood filmmakers seem to pride themselves on their accuracy, or perhaps just enough accuracy, to make the film seem factual. According to Richard Lindheim, the Executive Director of the Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) in Los Angeles, after 9/11 Pentagon officials contacted ICT (an organization that runs reality training simulations for the military) and requested the assembly of a group of Hollywood screenwriters, producers, and directors to dream up possible terrorist scenarios in a post-9/11 world. The intention was to try and predict what the terrorists might do next.15 As mentioned previously there is a grouping of films that portray the U.S. President, the CIA, U.S. diplomats, and U.S. troops and therefore U.S. foreign policy. These films almost always have subtle, or even subliminal, foreign policy references. These references not only make the film seem contemporary by focusing in on current policy but also help to disseminate current policy information to the audience. Of course foreign policy is not necessarily the main plot of the movie but more of a subplot that adds weight and authenticity. Films such as The American President (1995), Executive Decision (1996), and Air Force One (1997) are prime examples of films utilizing the “authenticity” of the characters, as well as the current political climate, for validation. Professor Sam Hamod argues in his article Reagan Redux: Bush and Ashcroft, Lies All The Way16 that President Reagan and Secretary Schultz were the first to use the media as a tool to disseminate the U.S. stance toward a Rogue State and that all the Administrations since have done the same. Professor Hamod gives the example of the so-called Libyan hit-squads that were supposedly sent by Libya to assassinate President Reagan. By the time this was found to be pure disinformation the United States had already bombed Libya on three separate occasions, killed Qaddafi’s daughter, and turned Libya into a pariah in the eyes of the U.S. population. Professor Hamod relates this to President Bush (43) and the U.S. government assertions about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpile and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. It seems that when it comes to Hollywood film and its portrayal of foreign policy there are several “rules.” First, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Second, only the good guys win. Third, the good guys are always Americans. Hollywood films such as Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan (1998) and the submarine tale U-571 (2000) put Americans at the fore in World War II in place of the British. Never mind the 72,000 British

162

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

and Canadian troops on D-Day, it was all about finding one American soldier. Never mind that it was the British who captured an Enigma encoding machine from a German submarine six months before America entered the war. As David Robb points out in Operation Hollywood, it is not just that Hollywood producers are receiving Pentagon support for their films; it has become more than that. Hollywood producers are self-censoring in order to keep Washington happy.17 Furthermore, the Rogue States play a large role in that their existence as the enemy of the United States helps to justify high military spending. Of course, when it comes to making movies in Hollywood, nothing is in absolutes. Not cooperating with the Pentagon is a badge of honor for some directors, but obviously, they have to have enough clout to do so without the Pentagon’s approval. Furthermore, Hollywood does make some antiwar and anti-U.S. foreign policy films, such as the recent Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) and Syriana (2005), but again, the director or producer must have enough clout to be able to do so. Since 2001, Gallup has asked the American public who is America’s greatest enemy. In each survey, there has been a change in the country or countries at the top of the list. In 2001, Iraq (38 percent) was considered the greatest enemy by a wide margin over any other country. China was second that year at 14 percent, followed by Iran at 8 percent. In 2005, Iraq and North Korea tied as America’s greatest enemy, each at 22 percent. Iran followed next at 14 percent. Although there has been movement at the very top of the list, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have typically been among the top three countries cited. The percentage of Americans who say Iran is the greatest enemy has increased in each of the three surveys, while the percentage mentioning Iraq has declined during this time. Figure 10.118 shows this trend. When asked in 2006, Americans listed the three original members of “The Axis of Evil” as the greatest threat to America. Iran was named as the greatest threat to America and out of the ten countries respondents listed, four were designated Rogue States. Figure 10.219 shows the results of this survey. Gallup Surveys measure public opinion on many of these countries yearly and on others periodically. 20 Generally speaking, the ratings are fairly stable, in that countries that are rated positively one year are usually rated positively the next, and the countries rated negatively usually receive negative ratings whenever they are asked. However, in some cases, such as the U.S. dispute with France over the Iraq War and the incident at Tiananmen Square, Americans’ views of other countries can change quickly in response to international events. In the most recent ratings,

Conclusion

●

163

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2001

2005

2006 Iran

Iraq

North Korea

Figure 10.1 America’s greatest threat trends

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 France

Russia

United States

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Afghanistan

China

North Korea

Iraq

Iran

0

Figure 10.2 America’s greatest threats in 2006

2006, some changes in relation to the Rogue States should be noted. The 21 percent favorable rating of Cuba is down from 28 percent ratings in each of the previous three years, and is the lowest for Cuba since a 10 percent score in 1996. At 7 percent favorable, views of Iran are slightly more negative this year than in the recent past. From 2001 to 2005, favorable ratings of Iran ranged from 11 percent to 17 percent. Iran had previously received single digit favorable ratings in 1989 and 1996.

164

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

When it came to American opinion, all of the Rogue States that were polled were viewed “unfavorably” with Iran at 86 percent, North Korea at 81 percent, Iraq at 75 percent, Cuba at 71 percent, Syria at 60 percent, 21 and Libya at 58 percent. *

*

*

If a Rogue State is merely acting contrary to the wishes of other powers, particularly the United States, then all seven of the Rogue States have indeed been guilty of this at times. However, many other countries have been guilty of this as well. If a Rogue State is one that is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction, committing human rights violations, harboring suspected terrorists or supporting terrorist organizations, and other offenses such as tolerating drug trafficking and political corruption, then perhaps not all of the Rogue States are guilty. Referring back to the definition by then U.S. Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, Rogue States are those that are . . . state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations.22

If this is the case then it can be argued that Cuba and Sudan are not Rogue States and the ongoing inclusion of Libya, Iraq, and Syria should be revisited. The findings of this book raise several other issues and questions that need to be addressed to fully understand the true purpose of Rogues States in U.S. foreign policy. These questions also are important in understanding Hollywood film and its depiction of “enemies.” This book has examined the Rogue States, which have been designated as such by the U.S. Department of State. There are several states though that beg the question: Why aren’t they a Rogue State? The next section will address this question and brief ly examine why these countries could, or should, be considered Rogue States, why they are not, and how has Hollywood treated these States in film. The funding of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Reagan Administration had very serious ramifications for the United States.23 As outlined in Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, the U.S. support for Osama bin Laden when he was helping the Afghan Mujahedeen fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, resulted in the September 11, 2001 attacks by al-Qaida against the United States. This in turn

Conclusion

●

165

resulted in the War on Terror and subsequently the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. If any country fits the criteria for being a Rogue State, surely Afghanistan does. It is a country that has been bombed by two U.S. Administrations, it has harbored terrorists and Islamic extremists and yet it has never been labeled as a Rogue State. Perhaps the reason for this, as suggested previously in relation to Cuba, is that being a Rogue State has less to do with the threat one actually is to the United States and more to do with ulterior motives or the strength of a central government. Not surprisingly, Hollywood film has completely ignored Afghanistan as being an enemy. In fact, a film worthy of note in relation to Afghanistan and its depiction of U.S.Afghani relations is Rambo III (1988) where it shows Rambo working with the good and honest Mujahedeen in Afghanistan on a hostage rescue mission against the evil Russians. The plot has John Rambo’s former Vietnam superior, Colonel Samuel Trautman, being assigned to lead a mission to help the Mujahedeen rebels who are fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Trautman is kidnapped and tortured by Russian Colonel Zaysen and so Rambo launches a rescue effort and allies himself with the Mujahedeen rebels and enlists their help in trying to rescue Trautman from Zaysen. This particular exchange in the film between Rambo and Mousa, the Afghan Mujahedeen, leader is very illuminating: Mousa: This is Afghanistan . . . Alexander the Great try to conquer this country . . . then Genghis Khan, then the British. Now Russia. But Afghan people fight hard, they never be defeated. Ancient enemy make prayer about these people . . . you wish to hear? Rambo: Um-hum. Mousa: Very good. It says, “May God deliver us from the venom of the Cobra, teeth of the tiger, and the vengeance of the Afghan.” Understand what this means? Rambo: That you guys don’t take any shit? Mousa: Yes . . . something like this.

Rambo III is the ultimate Reagan-era shoot-em-up style film and it is perhaps one of the final “bipolar” action films. The Guinness Book of World Records noted this film in 1990 as being the most violent film ever made with 221 acts of violence and over 108 deaths. What is important of note, and a glaring anachronism these days, is that the fundamental Islamists are portrayed as America’s freedom-loving allies. The United States is often seen as having two opposing foreign policies responses in relation to terrorism in the Middle East: one for the

166

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

designated Rogue States and another one for Israel. Some argue that Israel’s repressive measures against the Palestinians are the same used by the Rogue States and that the United States is in fact endorsing statesponsored terrorism through its support of Israel.24 Furthermore, Israel is a nuclear power but the United States is silent on Israel not being a signatory of the NPT. There is an extensive corpus of literature on this topic but is outside the scope of this current study. Suffice to say that Hollywood tends not to depict Israel in an unfavorable manner. Like Afghanistan, U.S. foreign policy toward Lebanon begs the question: Why isn’t Lebanon on the Rogue State list? It was (pro-Syrian) President Emile Lahoud’s quest for an extra-constitutional extension to his term that was the first domino that eventually led to the assassination of Former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and sparked the Cedar Revolution. Instead of listing Lebanon as a Rogue State for harboring Palestinian “terrorists” and being undemocratic sponsors of violence, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice enjoyed a friendly “visit” with President Lahoud on July 22, 2005. There is one Hollywood film featuring the Lebanese that really stands out: Chuck Norris’s Delta Force (1986). The film Delta Force very loosely based on the hijacking of flight TWA 847, which occurred in June 1985. This incident was humiliating for the United States, so much so that the film actually changes the ending of the event. The plot of the film sees a 707 aircraft on its f light from Athens to Rome to New York City being hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. The terrorists demand that the pilot reroute the plane and take them to Beirut. The terrorists then kill passengers until their demands are met. The Delta Force, an elite team of commandos, led by Major McCoy (played by Chuck Norris) and Colonel Alexander (played by Lee Marvin) are called into action to eliminate all terrorists on the plane, and those involved in the hijacking, and to retake the plane before the terrorists kill all the hostages. The tagline of the film sums up U.S. foreign policy toward terrorists with a Hollywood twist: “They don’t negotiate with terrorists . . . they blow them away!” The film is brimming with the standard Arab stereotypes but worthy of note is that the hijackers are compared to the Nazis and are portrayed as hating everyone, particularly Jews, Christians, and Americans. This film is a Golan-Globus film and as such was primarily filmed in Israel with Israeli actors portraying the Palestinian terrorists, and Ben-Gurion airport serving as Beirut airport. The Israeli military actually provided the F-16’s for the film. Israel is portrayed as “America’s best friend in the Middle East” and although the terrorists in the film are actually

Conclusion

●

167

Palestinians not Lebanese the shift in American perception of Lebanon is illustrated clearly when the character Harry Goldman says: I was in Beirut 20 years ago. You should’ve been here then. It was beautiful! Beirut had casinos, dances, parties, concerts. It was the Las Vegas of the Middle East.

Lebanon is a country that has never been officially deemed a Rogue State but it is a country where the United States has experienced some very unpleasant encounters. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 a multinational force led by the United States arrived in Lebanon to oversee the PLO and Syrian withdrawal from Beirut. During this period there was a substantial rise in the number of terrorist attacks, particularly against the American forces. This included the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks. Despite all of this the Lebanese government has generally tried to be cooperative with the United States and perhaps this is the reason that Lebanon has never been deemed a Rogue State. Although Pakistan is not considered a Rogue State by the United States it does meet the “criteria” applied to what constitutes a Rogue State. The United States has professed ignorance of the Pakistani government in regard to the nuclear technology transfer by Abdul Qadeer Khan to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. 25 For its part Hollywood has ignored Pakistan in film entirely. Although Palestine is not a state and therefore does not technically exist, it is still perceived by many to be a serious issue in relation to terrorism. Like Libyans, Palestinians have become popular villains in Hollywood films. Interestingly, the first Hollywood film to feature Palestinians as the baddies, Hell Squad, wasn’t released until 1985 although it was actually made in 1983. This coincided with the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro by PLO terrorists. In Hell Squad, Palestinians are portrayed as incompetent terrorists who are trying to manufacture an “ultra-neutron bomb” and who are defeated by American dancing girls who have had ten days of commando training. The occurrence of Palestinians as terrorists and hijackers in Hollywood film gained momentum and a spate of films ensued including Wild Geese II (1985), Hostage (1986), Not Quite Jerusalem (1986), Scorpion (1986), Death Before Dishonor (1987), The Naked Gun (1988), Bright Lights, Big City (1988), Ministry of Vengeance (1989), Cover-Up (1991), Delta Force III—The Killing Game (1991), Killing Streets (1991),

168

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

and The Seventh Coin (1992). In fact, rarely if ever, are Palestinians portrayed as anything other than terrorists or hijackers. The Ambassador (1984), also known as The Peacemaker, is a film featuring Robert Mitchum, Rock Hudson, Ellen Burstyn, and Donald Pleasance. Based on the novel 52 Pick-Up by Elmore Leonard, the movie was filmed in Israel. The plot in essence is that the PLO assassinates Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers, which prevents peace in the region. What is important about this movie is that it is a film that is believed by audiences to have credibility because it is portrayed as being based on real-life events. At the very start of the film superimposed on the screen are the words A group known as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) has vowed to never recognize Israel’s right to exist. A PLO splinter group, SAIKA, spreads terror on both the Israelis and the Arabs to prevent peace.26

This statement sets the tone for the film and is repeated during the film again and again with such additions as “they also massacre children.” Not all the Palestinians are seen as being bad in this film but it is only Palestinians who are portrayed as bad. When Israeli soldiers massacre Palestinians it is seen as justified. As with many films of this genre the keffiyeh 27 is linked to Palestinian Terrorists rather than Arabs as a whole. It is important to note that the typical keffiyeh worn by Yasser Arafat is dominant in this film, and the link between Arafat, the PLO the keffiyeh, terrorism, and being antipeace, is constantly reinforced. Following the Oslo Peace Accords in 199328 the portrayal of Palestinians as terrorists and hijackers in Hollywood film ceased. This supports the hypothesis of the book that friends and enemies in film are based on real life. However, as Palestine is not a “state” by definition it cannot be a Rogue State. Notably, Americans’ unfavorable ratings of the Palestinian Authority in 2006 are the highest Gallup has measured. The Palestinian Authority Unfavorable rating was 78 percent.29 It is believed by many that anti-American sentiment is rising unabated around the globe because the United States, and the U.S. State Department in particular, has abdicated values and principles in favor of accommodation and passivity.30 The United States is increasingly seen as roguish in the international human rights community. Failing to ratify or sign (or both) several Human Rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on Racism and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 31

Conclusion

●

169

This book is not going to explore this issue further as it is covered comprehensively in William Blum’s Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (2005). *

*

*

The Future: The Rogue States and Hollywood Film Whilst the Bush (43) Administration is currently advocating diplomacy in response to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability, the United States has increased its clandestine activities inside Iran and drawn up extensive military plans should they be needed.32 However, in light of the historic lack of portrayal of Iran in Hollywood film it is highly unlikely that this will translate into an increase in Iran being portrayed as an enemy. It could also be argued that Iran is such a long-term and wellestablished enemy in the psyche of Americans that no further vilification by Hollywood is necessary. As opinion polls from the past twenty-six years show, Iran has been perceived as a constant enemy in the mind of Americans. In 1980, 90 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Iran, with 60 percent of Americans having a “very unfavorable” opinion of Iran.33 Iran still has few defenders among Americans. In 2006, only 7 percent have a favorable impression of that country while 86 percent have an unfavorable impression. This makes Iran the least popular of twenty-two countries rated in Gallup’s annual World Affairs Poll.34 Iran also ranks at the top of the list of countries named when respondents were asked to say what country anywhere in the world they consider to be America’s greatest enemy. Close to one-third of Americans (31 percent) named Iran. Following the dramatic foreign policy shift with the historic decision to relinquish Libya’s weapons of mass destruction. Colonel Qaddafi has moved from a “rogue criminal” to “responsible statesman” and been welcomed back by the West into the international community as an example of how a Rogue can redeem itself. 35 It is unlikely that Libyans will be the designated “baddies” in future Hollywood films. In the most recent Gallup surveys, 55 percent of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to go to war in Iraq36 and 53 percent believe that the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. 37 Given these feelings and the unlikelihood of a clear U.S. “victory” in Iraq and the historical tendency of Hollywood to distance itself from areas that the United States does not “reign supreme,” such as the Korean War, it is

170

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

extremely unlikely that Hollywood films in the near future will showcase the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. American public opinion has continued to increase in its support for a U.S.-led invasion of Syria. In 2003, only 18 percent of Americans believed that Syria’s actions justified a U.S. war against Syria but in 2005, 26 percent of Americans supported U.S. military action against Syria.38 However, as this study has shown, Hollywood has been slow to demonize Syria on film and this seems unlikely to change in the near future. The three remaining Rogue States of Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan have been on the “backburner” recently on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, the minds of the American public, and in Hollywood films. Whilst they are perceived by Americans to be enemies of the United States and are still viewed by the Bush (43) Administration as Rogue States, they are not an immediate “threat.” It seems likely given the treatment these states have received in the past from Hollywood that they will continue to be used as “reserve” enemies should the need arise. One of the focuses of International Relations is the relationship between power and interests. The military and economic capabilities of a state generally reflect its level of power. States must consider the power relationship between itself and the other state when trying to maximize its security interests. This is particularly true for Rogue States. 39 With the continuing War on Terror and the focus of U.S. foreign policy starting to shift away from the Rogue State to terrorists in general it seems highly likely that the new enemy of choice in Hollywood film will be the “terrorist.” This “terrorist genre” has its origins in the 1970s and peaked during President Reagan’s years in the White House. The terrorists at this time were generally Muslims and Arabs, often Palestinians, and it seems that the enemies in future Hollywood films are likely to be the old enemies of past. A return to this familiar territory in the near future seems inevitable based on the findings of this study and supported by the recent proliferation of films about the events of September 11, 2001. Many changes have occurred during the writing of this book, which have shifted the focus of U.S. foreign policy away from the Rogue States. However, the overall findings of this book depict how the soft power of Hollywood film can be wielded in relation to the demonization of the enemies of the United States. Just as Dorfman and Mattelart found in 1971, the foreign policy interests of the United States can, and do, intersect with popular culture and have a profound effect on the perceptions of “the enemy.”

APPENDIX I

Transcripts of President Clinton’s Two Speeches Following the U.S. Air Strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan

T

he first speech was President Clinton speaking at Edgartown Elementary School, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. After delivering the first speech, President Clinton returned to the White House and after a briefing from his advisors gave the second speech as an Address to the Nation. Both speeches were delivered on August 20, 1998. Speech One Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terroristrelated facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security. I have said many times that terrorism is one of the greatest dangers we face in this new global era. We saw its twisted mentality at work last week in the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, which took the lives of innocent Americans and Africans and injured thousands more. Today we have struck back. The United States launched an attack this morning on one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It is located in Afghanistan and operated by groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden, a network not sponsored by any state, but as dangerous as any we face. We also struck a chemical weapons-related facility in Sudan. Our target was the terrorists’ base of operation and infrastructure. Our objective was to damage their capacity to strike at Americans and other innocent people. I ordered this action for four reasons: First, because we have convincing evidence these groups played the key role in the embassy bombings in

172

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

Kenya and Tanzania. Second, because these groups have executed terrorist attacks against Americans in the past. Third, because we have compelling information that they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties we saw so tragically in Africa. And, fourth, because they are seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons. Terrorists must have no doubt that, in the face of their threats, America will protect its citizens and will continue to lead the world’s fight for peace, freedom, and security. Now I am returning to Washington to be briefed by my National Security team on the latest information. I will provide you with a more detailed statement later this afternoon from the White House. Thank you very much. Speech Two Good afternoon. Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terroristrelated facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security. I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today. The groups associated with him come from diverse places but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion, to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against. A few months ago and again this week, bin Laden publicly vowed to wage a terrorist war against America, saying, and I quote, “We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They’re all targets.” Their mission is murder, and their history is bloody. In recent years they killed American, Belgian, and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia. They plotted to assassinate the President of Egypt and the Pope. They planned to bomb six United States 747s over the Pacific. They bombed the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan. They gunned down German tourists in Egypt. The most recent terrorist events are fresh in our memory. Two weeks ago, 12 Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians lost their lives and another 5,000 were wounded when our embassies in Nairobi

Appendix I

●

173

and Dar es Salaam were bombed. There is convincing information from our intelligence community that the bin terrorist network was responsible for these bombings. Based on this information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned, financed, and carried out by the organization bin Laden leads. America has battled terrorism for many years. Where possible, we’ve used law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. The long arm of American law has reached out around the world and brought to trial those guilty of attacks in New York, in Virginia, and in the Pacific. We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We’ve worked to build an international coalition against terror. But there have been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough, when our very national security is challenged, and when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act. And so this morning, based on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, I ordered our Armed Forces to take action to counter an immediate threat from the bin Laden network. Earlier today, the United States carried out simultaneous strikes against terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Laden network’s infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe. We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions. Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden network. The factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons. The United States does not take this action lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harbouring and supporting these terrorist groups. But countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe havens. Let me express my gratitude to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies for their hard, good work. And let me express my pride in our armed forces, who carried out this mission while making every possible effort to minimize the loss of innocent life. I want you to understand, I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of

174

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world, including the United States. No religion condones the murder of innocent men, women, and children. But our actions were aimed at fanatics and killers who wrap murder in the cloak of righteousness and, in so doing, profane the great religion in whose name they claim to act. My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa, nor will it end with today’s strike. It will require strength, courage, and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism. We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must. America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy, and basic human values; because we’re the most open society on earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism. But of this I am also sure; the risks from inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact. In this case, we knew before our attack that these groups already had planned further actions against us and others. I want to reiterate: The United States wants peace, not conf lict. We want to lift lives around the world, not take them. We have worked for peace in Bosnia, in Northern Ireland, in Haiti, in the Middle East and elsewhere, but in this day, no campaign for peace can succeed without a determination to fight terrorism. Let our actions today send this message loud and clear: There are no expendable American targets. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests, and our values. We will help people of all faiths in all parts of the world who want to live free of fear and violence. We will persist and we will prevail. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless our country.

APPENDIX II

The following list contains examples of Hollywood films that have received official assistance from the Pentagon: Air Force One (1997) Armageddon (1998) Behind Enemy Lines (2001) Black Hawk Down (2001) Clear and Present Danger (1994) Deep Impact (1998) Enemy of the State (1998) From Here to Eternity (1953) Independence Day (1996) Jurassic Park III (2001) Men of Honour (2000) Patton (1970) Pearl Harbor (2001) Saving Private Ryan (1998) The Hunt for the Red October (1990) The Longest Day (1962) The Peacemaker (1997) The Rules of Engagement (2000) The Sum of All Fears (2002) The Thin Red Line (1998) Top Gun (1986) Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)

176

●

How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy

The following list contains examples of Hollywood films that have been denied official assistance from the Pentagon: An Officer and a Gentleman (1982) Apocalypse Now (1979) Broken Arrow (1996) Catch-22 (1970) Courage Under Fire (1996) Crimson Tide (1995) Dr. Strangelove (1964) Failsafe (1964) Forrest Gump (1994) Full Metal Jacket (1987) GI Jane (1997) Lone Star (1996) Mars Attacks! (1996) Memphis Belle (1990) Outbreak (1995) Platoon (1986) Sergeant Bilko (1996) Space Cowboys (2000) The Deer Hunter (1978) The General’s Daughter (1999) The Last Detail (1973) The Three Kings (1999) Thirteen Days (2000)

Notes

Chapter 1

Introduction

1. Nye, Joseph S (Jr.). Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalisation. Routledge, London, 2004. 2. de Zoysa, Richard and Newman, Otto. Globalization, Soft Power and the Challenge of Hollywood. Contemporary Politics, 2002, 8, 3, Sept., 185–202. 3. Hozic, A. Uncle Sam Goes to Siliwood: Of Landscapes, Spielberg and Hegemony. Review of International Political Economy, 1999, 6, 3, Fall, 289–312. 4. Crampton, Andrew and Power, Marcus. Frames of Reference on the Geopolitical Stage: Saving Private Ryan and the Second World War/ Second Gulf War Intertext. Geopolitics, 2005, 10, 2, Summer, 244–265. 5. Scott, Allen J. Hollywood and the World: The Geography of MotionPicture Distribution and Marketing. Review of International Political Economy, 2004, 11, 1, Feb., 33–61. 6. Mueller, J. The Common Sense. National Interest, 1997, 47, Spring, 81–88. 7. Lisle, Debbie and Pepper, Andrew. The New Face of Global Hollywood: Black Hawk Down and the Politics of Meta-Sovereignty. Cultural Politics, 2005, 1, 2, July, 165–191. 8. Carruthers, Susan L. Bringing It All Back Home: Hollywood Returns to War. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 2003, 14, 1, Spring, 167–182. 9. Pethes, Nicholas. “Thinking Ahead” Fiction as Prediction in Popular Scripts on Political Scenarios. Soziale Systeme, 2003, 9, 2, 272–284. 10. Huiskamp, Gerard. Minority Report on the Bush Doctrine. New Political Science, 2004, 26, 3, Sept., 389–415. 11. Webber, Julie. Independence Day as a Cosmopolitan Moment: Teaching International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 2005, 6, 3, Aug., 374–392. 12. Shaheen, Jack G. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2003, 588, July, 171–193.

178

●

Notes

13. Mandel, Daniel. Muslims on the Silver Screen. Middle East Quarterly, 2001, 8, 2, Spring, 19–30. 14. King, Desmond. Americans in the Dark? Recent Hollywood Representations of the Nation’s History. Government and Opposition, 2003, 38, 2, Spring, 163–180. 15. Noakes, John A . Racializing Subversion: The FBI and the Depiction of Race in Early Cold War Movies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2003, 26, 4, July, 728–749. 16. Pollard, Tom. The Hollywood War Machine. New Political Science, 2002, 24, 1, Mar., 121–139. 17. Medved, Michael. That’s Entertainment? Hollywood’s Contribution to Anti-Americanism Abroad. National Interest, 2002, 68, Summer, 5–14. 18. Grenier, R. Hollywood’s Foreign Policy. National Interest, 1991, 24, Summer, 67–77. 19. Kuzma, Lynn M. and Haney, Patrick J. And . . . Action! Using Film to Learn about Foreign Policy. International Studies Perspectives, 2001, 2, 1, Feb., 33–50. 20. Lindley, Dan. What I Learned Since I Stopped Worrying and Studied the Movie: A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. Political Science and Politics, 2001, 34, 3, Sept., 663–667. 21. Corkin, Stanley. Cowboys as Cold Warriors: The Western and US History. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2004. 22. Green, Philip. Cracks in the Pedestal: Ideology and Gender in Hollywood. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1998. 23. U.S. Supreme Court , JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 11. Argued March 26, 1963. Restored to the calendar for reargument April 29, 1963. Reargued April 1, 1964. Decided June 22, 1964. 24. Said, Edward, Orientalism, Vintage Books, USA, 1979. 25. The New York Review of Books, 29, 11, June 24, 1982. 26. The New York Review of Books, 29, 13, August 12, 1982. 27. Appendix II lists some of the Hollywood movies that have asked for Pentagon assistance. One list contains those that have received it and the other list is those films that were denied assistance due to their content. 28. Social Learning Theory is also referred to as Observational Learning Theory in some texts. 29. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1986. 30. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1977. 31. Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962. (Original work was published 1934). 32. Palmer, Patricia. The Lively Audience: A Study of Children around the TV Set. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1986. 33. This is a very loose plot description of The American President (1995), which is discussed in detail in chapter five.

Notes

●

179

34. Aladdin (1992) was the 15th highest grossing film in the 1990s and the 46th highest grossing film of all time. It won two Academy Awards for “Best Music—Original Score” and “Best Music—Original Song” and was nominated for three others. Aladdin won three Golden Globes and was nominated for three more. Additional awards include: ASCAP Award (2), BMI Film Award (2), Grammy Award (2), Golden Screen (1), LAFCA Award (1), Golden Reel Award (1), and Saturn Award (3). It was nominated for many additional awards. 35. Other recent Disney films such as Pocahontas (1995) and Mulan (1998) have contained more overt political commentaries on the British colonization of North America and the Huns invasion of China respectively. 36. Maddox, Gary. Hollywood finds a role for father figures. Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, May 28, 2005, p. 13. 37. On screen, bad boys light up. Sydney Morning Herald, August 10, 2005, p. 3. 38. The Torrijos-Carter Treaties were a pair of treaties signed by the United States and Panama in September 1977. The treaties guaranteed that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999. The treaties are named after the two signatories, US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos. The first treaty is officially called The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, commonly referred to as the Neutrality Treaty. Under this treaty, the United States retains the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations. The second treaty is called The Panama Canal Treaty. It is this treaty that insured that after the year 2000, Panama would assume full control of canal operations and become primarily responsible for its defense. 39. SALT II stands for Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II. 40. The Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States continued to trade and the United States unofficially recognized Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act. 41. The Gallup Poll #151G. March 24, 1980. Question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Jimmy Carter is handling the crisis in Iran?” 2775 respondents answer the question. Results: Approve (39.39%), Disapprove (50.23%), DON’T KNOW (10.38%). 42. State of the Union Address, January 23, 1980. 43. An example was the installation on the roof of the White House of solar water heating panels. These were one of the first items removed by the Reagan administration. 44. Taken verbatim from Reagan’s Farewell Address to the Nation (January 1989). 45. Bronski, Michael. The Truth about Reagan and AIDS. Z Magazine. January 2004. 46. Ibid. 47. O’Connor, Brendon. Are We All Americans Now? The Superpower and Its Critics. Australian Journal of Political Science, 2004, 39, 2, July, 421–426.

180

●

Notes

48. The “Evil Empire” refers to the Soviet Union and was a term coined by President Reagan. It was first used in his Speech before the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida on March 8, 1983. 49. President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in a televised address to the nation on March 23, 1983. 50. Geneva 1985, Reykjavik 1986, Washington 1987, Moscow 1988. 51. http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan_berlin200406070934.asp 52. This was whilst President Reagan underwent surgery on July 13, 1985. 53. Bush (426) to Dukakis (111) to Bentsen (1). Bush was the last Republican to win Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California—all of which are now considered Democratic Blue States. 54. George Bush’s Acceptance Address at the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans on August 18, 1988. 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid. 57. An example of this is in President Bush’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1989. 58. President Bush’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1989. 59. George Bush’s Acceptance Address at the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans on August 18, 1988. 60. President Bush’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1989. 61. George Bush’s Acceptance Address at the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans on August 18, 1988. 62. “And I’m the one who will not raise taxes . . . My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’ ” George Bush’s Acceptance Address at the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans on August 18, 1988. 63. The first being Andrew Johnson in 1868. 64. “It’s the economy, stupid” was Clinton’s well-known catchphrase in the 1992 presidential campaign. 65. Dumbrell, John. Was There a Clinton Doctrine? President Clinton’s Foreign Policy Reconsidered. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 2002, 13, 2, June, 43–56. 66. Schwenniger, S. The Rift Over Rogues. National, 1996, 263, 10, October 7, 21–24. 67. Zoubir, Yahia H. Libya in US Foreign Policy: From Rogue State to Good Fellow? Third World Quarterly, 2002, 23, 1, Feb., 31–53. 68. President Ronald Reagan at the Annual Convention of the American bar Association, July 8, 1985. 69. John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, Washington DC. September 16, 2003.

Notes

●

181

Chapter 2 The End of the Cold War: Rogue States and Their Characteristics 1. Rubin, Barry. U.S. Foreign Policy and Rogue States. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 1999, 3, 3, Sept., 72–77. 2. Such as the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) signed on May 26, 1972 and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II) signed on the June 18, 1979. 3. Ask Oxford.com 4. Lake, Anthony. Confronting Backlash States. Foreign Affairs, 1994, 73, 2, March/April, 46. 5. Geldenhuys, Deon. Beyond the Rogue State Paradigm. South African Journal of International Affairs, 2002, 9, 1, Summer, 75–88. 6. Brown, Carl L. International Politics and the Middle East. Princeton, 1984, pp. 16–17. 7. Siracusa, Joseph M and Coleman, David G. Scaling the Nuclear Ladder: Deterrence from Truman to Clinton. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2000, 54, 3, Nov., 277–296. 8. Castles, Stephen. Hierarchical Citizenship in a World of Unequal NationStates. Political Science and Politics, 2005, 38, 4, Oct., 689–692. 9. Bilgin, Pinar and Morton, Adam David. From ‘Rogue’ to ‘Failed’ States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism. Politics, 2004, 24, 3, Sept., 169–180. 10. Caprioli, Mary and Trumbore, Peter F. Rhetoric versus Reality: Rogue States in Interstate Conf lict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2005, 49, 5, Oct., 770–791. 11. Caprioli, Mary and Trumbore, Peter F. Identifying ‘Rogue’ States and Testing Their Interstate Conf lict Behavior. European Journal of International Relations, 2003, 9, 3, Sept., 377–406. 12. Geldenhuys, Deon. Beyond the Rogue State Paradigm. South African Journal of International Affairs, 2002, 9, 1, Summer, 75–88. 13. Veit, Raphael. When Good States Go Bad. —Journal of Contemporary Analysis, 2003, 75, 2, Mar–Apr., 33–37. 14. The term itself is a combination reminiscent of both the German-ItalianJapanese Axis of World War II and President Reagan’s Evil Empire description of the Soviet Union during the cold war. This term was originally used in the State of the Union Address by President George W Bush. January 29, 2002. 15. US Under Secretary of State John Bolton gave a speech entitled: Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction on May 6, 2002 in which he added Syria, Libya, and Cuba to the list. 16. Ibid. 17. Thunderball (1965) was ranked number 10 in the list of highest grossing films in the 1960s. 18. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997).

182

●

Notes

19. Bond Girls have included Honor Blackman, Jill St. John, Jane Seymour, Kim Basinger, Famke Janssen, Sophie Marceau, Denise Richards, and Halle Berry. 20. Films such as Independence Day (1996), Mars Attacks! (1996), Men in Black (1997), Men in Black II (2002) and War of the Worlds (2005). 21. Such as The Ten Commandments (1956) and Ben Hur (1959). 22. Such as High Noon (1952) and Gunfight at the OK Corral (1957). 23. Such as My Fair Lady (1964) and The Sound of Music (1965). 24. Such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and The Towering Inferno (1974). 25. Such as Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Back to the Future (1985). 26. Such as Independence Day (1996) and Men in Black (1997). 27. Fisk, Robert. Victims of Our Own High-Flown Morality The “Good Guys” Who Can Do No Wrong. The Independent, May 1, 2004. 28. Lake, Anthony. Confronting Backlash States. Foreign Affairs, 1994, 73, 2, March/April, 45. 29. Ibid. 30. Bolton, John. Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. 31. According to the Oxford Dictionary a terrorist is “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” Ask Oxford.com 32. Central Intelligence Agency. From Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d). 33. Ibid. 34. Mueller, John and Mueller, Karl. The Methodology of Mass Destruction: Assessing Threats in the New World Order. Journal of Strategic Studies, 2000, 23, 1, Mar., 163–187. 35. Ahrari, M Ehsan. “Rogue States” and NMD/TMD: Policies in Search of a Rationale? Mediterranean Quarterly, 2001, 12, 2, Spring, 83–100. 36. Unveiled in a speech to the graduating class at West Point by President George W. Bush on June 1, 2002. 37. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. 38. Center for Contemporary Conf lict. Comparing Threats from Saddam and bin Laden. Strategic Insights, 2002, 1, 7, September. 39. John Bolton in remarks to the Conference of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Fletcher School’s International Security Studies Program. Washington DC. December 2, 2003, United States. 40. Federation of American Scientists. States Possessing, Pursuing or Capable of Acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction. June 2005. 41. Countries included on the FAS list are: Algeria (nuclear), Belarus (nuclear), Bulgaria (biological), Chile (chemical), China (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Cuba (biological), Ethiopia (chemical), Egypt (biological, chemical, missile), France (chemical, missile, nuclear), India (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Indonesia (chemical), Iran (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Iraq (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Israel (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Kazakhstan (chemical), Laos

Notes

42.

43.

44.

45.

46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

●

183

(biological, chemical), Libya (biological, chemical, missile), Myanmar (chemical), North Korea (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Pakistan (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Romania (biological), Russia (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), Serbia & Montenegro (chemical, nuclear), South Africa (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear), South Korea (biological, chemical, missile), Sudan (chemical), Syria (biological, chemical, missile), Taiwan (biological, chemical, missile), Thailand (chemical), Ukraine (nuclear),Vietnam (biological, chemical), United Kingdom (chemical, missile, nuclear), and the United States (biological, chemical, missile, nuclear). According to the FAS, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States are the only countries with known nuclear weapons. Israel, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States are the only countries that are known to have the delivery systems necessary for nuclear weapons. Gallup. Survey May 20–22, 1994. In your opinion, which ONE of the following countries represents the greatest threat to the national security of the United States today: [READ AND ROTATE] “Russia, China, India, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Japan?” (1006 answered question). Results: Iraq 41%, North Korea 36%, Iran 31%, China 29%, Russia 21%, Japan 14%, Libya 12%, Germany 3%, India 1%, Other 6%. Szewczyk, Bart M. J. Pre-emption, Deterrence, and Self-Defence: A Legal and Historical Assessment. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2005, 18, 1, Apr., 119–135. Kellner, Douglas. Preemptive Strikes and the War on Iraq: A Critique of Bush Administration Unilateralism and Militarism. New Political Science, 2004, 26, 3, Sept., 417–440. Offner, Arnold A. Rogue President, Rogue Nation: Bush and U.S. National Security. Diplomatic History, 2005, 29, 3, June, 433–435. Record, Jeffrey. The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq. Parameters, 2003, 33, 1, Spring, 4–21. Kellner, Douglas. Preemptive Strikes and the War on Iraq: A Critique of Bush Administration Unilateralism and Militarism. New Political Science, 2004, 26, 3, Sept., 417–440. Segell, Glen. Counter-Proliferating the Rogue States. Defense and Security Analysis, 2004, 20, 4, Dec., 343–354. Segell, Glen. A Ref lection on War against Rogue States. The Review of International Affairs, 2004, 3, 3, Spring, 479–494. Rademaker, Stephen G. Use of Force after 9/11. Chicago Journal of International Law, 2004, 5, 2, Winter, 461–465. Blinken, Antony J. From Preemption to Engagement. Survival, 2003– 2004, 45, 4, Winter, 33–60. Bolton, John R. The Bush Administration’s Forward Strategy for Nonproliferation. Chicago Journal of International Law, 2004, 5, 2, Winter, 395–404.

184

●

Notes

54. Muhula, Raymond. Rogue Nations, States of Concern, and Axes of Evil: Examining the Politics of Disarmament in a Changing Geopolitical Context. Mediterranean Quarterly, 2003, 14, 4, Fall, 76–95. 55. Castillo, Jasen J. Nuclear Terrorism: Why Deterrence Still Matters. Current History, 2003, 102, 668, Dec., 426–431. 56. Gabel, Josiane. The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons after September 11. The Washington Quarterly, 2004–2005, 28, 1, Winter, 181–195. 57. Mandelbaum, M. US Foreign Policy and Nuclear Weapons Today. SAIS Review, 1997, 27, 1, Winter–Spring, 73–92. 58. Dorff, Robert H and Cerami, Joseph R. Deterrence and Competitive Strategies: A New Look at an Old Concept. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 2000, 11, 2, Autumn, 109–123. 59. Zaborski, Jason. Deterring a Nuclear Iran. Washington Quarterly, 2005, 28, 3, Summer, 153–167. 60. State of the Union Address by President George W Bush. January 29, 2002. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Zunes, Stephen. The Function of Rogue States in US Middle East Policy. Middle East Policy Council Journal, V, 2, May 1997. 64. President George Bush in a speech to Congress on March 6, 1991. 65. Brown, Carl L. International Politics and the Middle East. Princeton, 1984. 66. al-Qaida May Have Tried To Kill Clinton, UPI, October 18, 2002. 67. Regime Change was one of the stated goals of the United States when President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act (1998). The Act directed that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” Public Law 105–338. October 31, 1998. 68. Hersh, Seymour. Late Edition, CNN. January 16, 2005. 69. Gallup, February 7–10, 2005. Question: “Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of [R ANDOM ORDER]very favourable, mostly favourable, mostly unfavourable, or very unfavourable? How about—[INSERT NEXT ITEM]?”

Chapter 3

The Islamic Republic of Iran

1. Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,002 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted February 6–9, 2006. 2. Paules, Marian Helen. U.S. Relations with Iran: American Identity, Foreign Policy, and the Politics of Representation. The Humanities and Social Sciences, 2003, 64, 2, Aug., 642-A. 3. Ibid.

Notes

●

185

4. President Carter. Energy and Nation Goals Address to the Nation Speech. July 15, 1979. This became known as the “malaise speech” although Carter never actually used the word “malaise.” 5. In his book, October Surprise, Gary Sick argues that representatives of Reagan’s presidential campaign met with the Iranians in July and August 1980 to delay the release of the US hostages until after the November 1980 presidential elections so that the incumbent President Jimmy Carter would not gain a popularity boost from an “October Surprise” hostage release. According to Sick, George HW Bush and William Casey used their CIA connections to make sure the hostages were held throughout October and November and in fact the hostages were only released 20 minutes after Reagan had delivered his inauguration address. 6. On July 3, 1988. 7. On February 22, 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in this incident. 8. This refers to Nixon’s dismissal (on Saturday night October 20, 1973) of special prosecutor Archibold Cox and the forced resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the Watergate scandal. The result of this action led to the Independent Counsel Act of 1978. 9. Oil is state-owned in Iran. 10. President Carter, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1980. 11. Russian-Iranian Relations: Outlook for Cooperation with the “Axis of Evil.” Strategic Insights, 2005, IV, 8, August. By Maj. Edward A. O’Connor, USAF. 12. Kenneth Katzman, Iran, Russia, and the New Muslim States, Our WorldCompuserve.com. 13. Andrew Jack, Inside Putin’s Russia, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 270. 14. Vladimir A. Orlov and Alexander Vinnikov. The Great Guessing Game: Russia and the Iranian Nuclear Issue. Washington Quarterly, 2005, 28, 2, Spring, 49. 15. Iran’s Use of International Terrorism. Department of State Bulletin. January 1988, p. 50. 16. Lenczowski, George. American Presidents and the Middle East. Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1990, p. 234. 17. Ibid. 18. See John Bolton’s remarks to the Conference of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Fletcher School’s International Security Studies Program. Washington DC, December 2, 2003. 19. Safeguards Implementation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ambassador Jackie Wolcott Sanders. Statement to IAEA Board of Governors, Agenda Item 5c: Nuclear Verification—Other Safeguards Implementation Issues. Vienna, Austria. March 2, 2005.

186

●

Notes

20. Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions—January 1, through June 30, 2003. 21. Stephen G. Rademaker. Acting Assistant Secretary, International Security and Nonproliferation Remarks at the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, Switzerland, May 18, 2006. Rising to the Challenge of Effective Multilateralism. 22. Ibid. 23. Landis also directed Animal House (1978), The Blues Brothers (1980), and Trading Places (1983). 24. http://rogereber t.suntimes.com /apps/pbc s.d ll/cla ssif ieds?c ategor y= s e a rc h1& S e a rc hTy p e =1& q =D av id%2 0 C rone nb er g& C l a s s =%25& FromDate=19150101&ToDate=20051231 25. http://rogereber t.suntimes.com /apps/pbc s.d ll/cla ssif ieds?c ategor y= search1&SearchType=1&q=Paul%20Mazursky&Class=%25&FromDate= 19150101&ToDate=20051231 26. http://rogereber t.suntimes.com /apps/pbc s.d ll/cla ssif ieds?c ategor y= search1&SearchType=1&q=Paul%20Bartel&Class=%25&FromDate= 19150101&ToDate=20051231

Chapter 4

The Republic of Cuba

1. Gallup. Question: “Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of CUBA very favourable, mostly favourable, mostly unfavourable, or very unfavourable?” 2. Russians refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis as the “Caribbean Crisis” and Cubans refer to it as the “October Crisis.” 3. More than 30 different plans were considered under the Cuban Project some of which were carried out. The plans included the use of American Green Berets, the destruction of the Cuban sugar crop; mining of harbours and even the possible creation of rumours that Jesus would return to Cuba after the Communist Party was overthrown. Other plans included: poor publicity for Castro, arming militant opposition groups, establishing guerrilla bases throughout the country, making Castro’s beard fall out, sending Castro a poisoned wetsuit, and placing explosive seashells in Castro’s favourite places to go diving. 4. In the late 1950s missile technology was well developed in the field of medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM), as opposed to ICBM that could not be kept in a state of readiness at all times. MRBMs represented only a small portion of the total American nuclear arsenal, which in turn was much larger than the USSR’s. 5. With the news of the confirmed photographic evidence of Soviet missile bases in Cuba, President Kennedy convened a special group of senior advisers to meet secretly at the White House. This group later became

Notes

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

11.

●

187

known as the ExComm, or Executive Committee of the National Security Council. From the morning of October 16, this group met frequently to devise a response to the threat. The officials had discussed the various options including an immediate bombing strike that was dismissed early on, as was a potentially time-consuming appeal to the United Nations. The choice was reduced to either a naval blockade and an ultimatum, or full-scale invasion. A blockade was finally chosen. An invasion was planned, and troops were assembled in Florida. Kennedy spoke to the American public (and the Soviet government) in a televised address on October 22. He confirmed the presence of the missiles in Cuba and announced the naval blockade as a quarantine zone of 500 nautical miles (926 km) around the Cuban coast, and warned that the military was “prepare[d] for any eventualities,” and condemned the Soviet Union for “secrecy and deception.” Franklin D. Roosevelt. 143—Address at Chicago on October 5, 1937. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/ index.php?pid=15476&st=quarantine&st1= Other harmless and/or careless errors include: (A) errors in geography such when the RF-8’s are taking off from a Florida Air Force Base mountains are clearly visible in the background; (B) In real life, when JFK left Chicago, supposedly with a cold, he wore a hat to make the story more believable to the press. JFK almost never wore a hat, so it would be noticed by the White House press corps if he actually wore one. In the movie, JFK does not wear a hat when he leaves the hotel in Chicago; (C) Two shots show the CH-46 tandem rotor helicopter in use. This helicopter did not enter service until 1964; (D) The name of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley is properly spelled in a prop banner during the film, but in the closing credits he is referred to as Mayor “Daly”; (E) Northrop F-5s are shown on the f light line. The F-5 entered operational service with the Air Force in October of 1963, a full year after the missile crisis; (F) One sequence of a US Air Force Strategic Air Command B-52 Stratofortress shows it to be armed with four Douglas AGM-48A Skybolt air-launched ballistic missiles. This weapons system was in development in 1962 and would be recommended for cancellation by Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara on November 21, 1962. President Kennedy concurred, and the project was cancelled in December 1962, having never entered operational service. Goodnough, Abby. Tensions Rise as More Flee Cuba for US. New York Times, December 18, 2005. Ibid. Morley, Morris and McGillion, Chris. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba after the Cold War, 1989–2001. Cambridge University Press, NY, 2002. Vanderbush, Walt and Hanley, Patrick. Clinton, Congress, and Cuba Policy between Two Codifications: The Changing Executive-Legislative

188

●

Notes

Relationship in Foreign Policy Making. Congress and the Presidency, 2002, 29, 2, Autumn, 171–194. 12. Gallup. Question: “Do you favour or oppose re-establishing US diplomatic relations with Cuba?” 13. A Few Good Men was ranked number 49 in the list of highest grossing films in the 1990s.

Chapter 5 The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1. Back to the Future (1985) is number 51 on the list of highest grossing films of all time and number 9 on the list of highest grossing films of the 1980s. 2. Many people incorrectly believe that Israel was the first country to gain independence through the United Nations. However, technically the UN partitioned Palestine and therefore Israel was not established by the UN partition in 1947 but through the War of Independence in 1948. 3. The British administered Tripolitania and Cyrenaicia and the French administered Fezzan. 4. Anderson, Lisa. A Last Resort, an Expedient and an Experiment: Statehood and Sovereignty in Libya. Journal of Libyan Studies, 2001, 2, 2, Winter, 14–25. 5. US Department of State. List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. 6. Lenczowski, George. American Presidents and the Middle East, 1990, pp. 212–213. 7. CRS Issue Briefing for Congress on Libya (Updated May 2, 2005). 8. Sterling, Claire, The Terror Network, 1981. 9. When reviewed in Foreign Affairs, Spring 1981, William P. Bundy described it as being “a landmark book, breaking much new ground.” 10. Arnold, Guy. The Maverick State: Gaddafi and the New World Order. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996. 11. The US Ambassador to Libya was withdrawn in 1973 after this dispute and not replaced. 12. Muammar Qaddafi, as quoted in the New York Times on January 26, 1986. 13. The attacked occurred on December 2, 1979. 14. CRS Issue Briefing for Congress on Libya (Updated May 2, 2005). 15. Ibid. 16. The “La Belle Nightclub” was a popular haunt of US Servicemen in Berlin. The explosion occurred on April 5, 1986 killing 3 people, 2 of who were US Servicemen and injuring 200, 60 of which were US citizens. In November 1997, 3 men (a Libyan, a Lebanese, and a German of Lebanese origin) and 2 women (both German) went on trial in a Berlin court for the 1986 nightclub bombing. It was said that Libyan authorities arranged for the bombing in retaliation for the January 1986 air-sea confrontation with

Notes

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24. 25.

●

189

the United States. The German judge found 4 of the accused guilty in November 2001, but stated that it was unproven that Qaddafi had personally ordered the bombing. In September 2004, Libya and Germany signed an agreement stating that Libya will pay $35 million to the 200 victims of the 1986 Berlin nightclub bombing. Libya made the first $15 million payment to the German victims on September 30, 2004. The bombing raids were ordered on 14 April 1986 and killed 70 people including Qaddafi’s daughter. This was not the first time the United States had tried to kill Qaddafi. In 1980, the United States shot down an Italian plane f lying over Ostika that they mistook for the plane carrying Qaddafi to Eastern Europe. Gallup. Survey on April 17 to April 18, 1986. Question: “Do you approve or disapprove of this week’s U.S. military action against Libya?” (1220 answered question). Results: Approve (71.01%), Disapprove (20.96%), Don’t know/No answer (8.03%). Gallup. Survey on April 17 to April 18, 1986. Question: “In your opinion, what role does Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi play in international terrorism: Is he the CHIEF sponsor of international terrorism, ONE OF A NUMBER of Mid-East leaders who sponsor terrorism, or NOT a sponsor of terrorism?” (1220 answered question) Results: Chief sponsor (30.51%), One of a number (60.81%), Not a sponsor (0.58%), Don’t know/No answer (8.10%). Gallup. Survey on April 17 to April 18, 1986. Question: “Which one of the following possible future U.S. actions would you support as the principal means of dealing with Libya—economic sanctions against Libya, bombing the Libyan oil fields, stirring up a military coup to remove Qaddafi from power, OR doing nothing?” (1220 answered question). Results: Economic sanctions against Libya (33.89%), Bombing the Libyan oil fields (9.59%), Stirring up a military coup to remove Qaddafi from power (41.54%), Doing nothing (3.26%), Don’t know/No opinion (VOL) (11.73%). US Department of State. List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organisations. The ANO is also known as the Fatah Revolutionary Council, the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, the Black September Movement, and the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims. Black September is believed to be responsible for the 1972 Massacre at the Munich Olympics. The IR A is also known as Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIR A) and the Provisional IR A. Muammar Qaddafi as quoted in Newsweek January 20, 1986. These sanctions included: the removal of airline connections with the outer world, reduced diplomatic representation, prohibition of the sale of military equipment to Libya, prohibition of the sale of refinery or pipeline equipment to Libya, and the freezing of Libyan foreign assets. Excluded however was the revenue from oil, natural gas, and agricultural commodities and the sale of oil production equipment to Libya.

190

●

Notes

26. The UNSC passed 3 resolutions in relations to the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 bombings. Resolution 731 (January 21, 1992) called upon Libya to extradite the two accused bombers. Resolution 748 (March 31, 1992) imposed a number of sanctions on Libya, such as a ban on Libyan aircraft flights, until Libya hands over the 2 suspects to British or US authorities for trial. Resolution 883 (November 11, 1993) bans sales of oil equipment to Libya, and places a limited freeze on Libyan foreign assets. However, Libya was able to move most of its foreign assets beyond the reach of the freeze called for in UN Resolution 883 during the two month-long debate over the Resolution. (The debate stretched out because Russia was hesitant to apply sanctions. This is because Libya owed Russia about $4 billion that would be more difficult to collect if tight sanctions were in place.) The United States believed the sanctions would not be effective without a ban on purchasing Libyan oil. European countries, particularly Italy and Germany, rejected an oil embargo because they are dependent upon light Libyan crude for their refineries. 27. The 1990s was also quiet militarily with only a single incident between the United States and Libya. It occurred in January 1989 when 2 U.S. Navy F-14 fighters shot down 2 Libyan MiG-23 aircraft 70 miles north of the Libyan coast. The US Department of Defence described the Libyan aircraft as displaying “hostile intent.” However, Libya claimed its 2 aircraft were on routine patrol and were attacked by the United States. 28. The final settlement presented to the UN called for a payment of $4 million for each victim when the UN sanctions were dropped and another payment of $4 million to each victim when the US sanctions were dropped, and a final payment of $2 million when the United States removed Libya from the terrorism list. Each victim’s family has received $8 million, thus far. CRS Issue Briefing for Congress on Libya (Updated May 2, 2005). 29. Zoubir, Yahia H. Libya in US Foreign Policy: From Rogue State to Good Fellow? Third World Quarterly, 2002, 23, 1, Feb., 31–53. 30. Adejo, Armstrong M. Gadaffi and Pan-Africanism: Misgivings or Misrepresentation?. African Journal of International Affairs and Development, 2003, 8, 1, 47–66. 31. Solomon, Hussein and Swart, Gerrie. Libya’s Foreign Policy in Flux. African Affairs, 2005, 104, 416, July, 469–492. 32. US Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003: Libya. 33. Deterring Libya The Strategic Culture of Muammar Qaddafi. By Commander Craig R Black, US Navy. The Counterproliferation Papers. Future Warfare Series No 8. USAF Counterproliferation Centre, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 34. Saif Aleslam al-Qaddafi wrote an article: Libyan-American Relations. Middle East Policy, 10, 2003, in which he outlined the Libyan perspective of US foreign policy actions toward Libya. It is an important article in that it outlines the foundation for the improvement of US-Libyan relations.

Notes

●

191

35. President Reagan instituted the travel ban on Libya in 1981, which prohibited using a US passport to travel to Libya, but the ban was dropped on February 26, 2004. On September 20, 2004, President Bush (43) dropped the remaining sanctions on aircraft and aircraft parts, air f lights, and access to Libyan assets in the United States. Only the terrorism list ban on transferring weapons remains. 36. Shaheen, Jack. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (2001), p. 68. Citing Hitchens, Christopher. The Clinton-Douglas Debates. The Nation, November 16, 1998. 37. In order to understand how significant and widely viewed the films covered in this chapter really are, following is the Gross Box Office takings for just the United States (all amounts are in US Dollars). This does not include the rest of the world, video/DVD rentals or exposure through television. Back to the Future (1985) $210,609,762; Half Moon Street (1986) $1,131,399; The Naked Gun (1988) $78,041,829; Patriot Games (1992) $83,287,363; and The American President (1995) $65,000,000. 38. Back to the Future (1985), Half Moon Street (1986), Broadcast News (1987), The Naked Gun (1988), and Terror Squad (1988). 39. Cover-Up (1991), Eve of Destruction (1991), and Patriot Games (1992). 40. Zoubir, Yahia H. Libya in US Foreign Policy: From Rogue State to Good Fellow? Third World Quarterly, 2002, 23, 1, Feb., 31–53. 41. Gallup. These surveys were taken in February each year from 2001 to 2004. The question was: “Next, I’d like your overall opinion on some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of [random order country] very favourable, mostly favourable, mostly unfavourable, or very unfavourable? How about [insert next item]?”

Chapter 6

The Republic of Iraq

1. Bush, George and Scowcroft, Brent. A World Transformed. Knopf, 1998. Chapter 19. Also see: Bush tells Gulf vets why Hussein was left in Baghdad, Army Link News. 2. January 20, 1989. 3. George H W Bush at the Republican Convention in 1988. 4. Robb, L. Operation Hollywood. 5. Although not pertinent to the central tenets of this book, it should be noted that the UN sanctions against Iraq literally crippled the Iraqi economy and removed any ability Iraq had to be an aggressor. UN Assistant Secretary-General Denis Halliday, who was appointed as UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad in 1997, resigned after only one year in the position (but after a 34 year career in the UN) stating that he did not want to administer a program [the UN Oil for Food] that satisfies the definition of genocide. According to UN estimates, more than a million children died during the sanction period, due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies. A UNICEF report in 1988 found that the

192

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

●

Notes

sanctions had resulted in an additional 90,000 Iraqi children dying each year since 1991. http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/pub_children_of_iraq_en.pdf U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm The Iraq Liberation Act was passed in October 1998. The Act provided US$97 million for Iraqi democratic opposition organizations in order to establish a program that would support a transition to democracy in Iraq. The Act is in direct contrast with the terms set out in UN Resolution 687 that relates to weapons, and weapons programs, not to what regime is in place. Usama bin Laden was known to view Iraq’s Ba’ath party as running an “apostate regime” and bin Laden’s ideological beliefs were in direct conflict with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), concluded that there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qa’ida in preparing for or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Gallup. Question: “I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of IR AQ very favourable, mostly favourable, mostly unfavourable, or very unfavourable?” Gallup. Question: “Do you favour or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?” Shaheen, Jack. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People, Olive Branch Press, NY, p. 550. Cannon made The Human Shield (1992). The Coalition of the Willing is the term used for the countries that were part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The following countries were all members although many have withdrawn or did not send troops but pledged their solidary to the Coalition. Current members (as at September 2005): USA, UK, Australia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, and Ukraine. Members with no military involvement: Angola, Colombia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iceland, Kuwait, Micronesia, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Members that have withdrawn: Dominican Republic, Honduras, Hungary, Philippines, Moldova, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, and Tonga.

Chapter 7 The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 1. Xizhen, Zhang and Brown, Eugene. Policies toward North Korea: A Time for New Thinking. Journal of Contemporary China, 2000, 9, 25, Nov., 535–545.

Notes

●

193

2. M*A*S*H the television series ran from 1972 until 1983. The final episode of the series entitled: “Goodbye, Farewell, Amen” was watched by almost 125 million people in the United States. It was the largest audience ever for a television program at that time. 3. MASH contained the first use of the word “fuck” in a major motion picture. 4. Bleiker, Roland. A Rogue Is a Rogue Is a Rogue: US Foreign Policy and the Korean Nuclear Crisis. International Affairs, 2003, 79, 4, July, 719–737. 5. O’Neil, Andrew. Learning to Live with Uncertainty: The Strategic Implications of North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Capability. Contemporary Security Policy, 2005, 26, 2, Aug., 317–334. 6. O’Neil, Andrew. Confronting the Reality of a Nuclear North Korea: The Challenge of Shrinking Policy Options. Policy and Society, 2004, 23, 2, 101–128. 7. Risen, James. CIA Sees a North Korean Missile Threat. New York Times, February 3, 1999. 8. Roehrig, Terence. “One Rogue State Crisis at a Time!” The United States and North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program. World Affairs, 2003, 165, 4, Spring, 155–178. 9. Cotton, James. The Second North Korean Nuclear Crisis. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2003, 57, 2, July, 261–279. 10. In a deleted scene on the DVD, the character Spotteswoode says: “I was overzealous in Cairo. I let racism cloud my judgment. I was so sure the ultimate terrorist was Middle Eastern, but I didn’t realize he was a goddamn Gook. I’ll never be a racist again.” Although left out the film, this scene shows Team America’s take on the War On Terrorism very succinctly.

Chapter 8

The Republic of Sudan

1. The three Kingdoms of Kush were: Kerma (2400–1500 BC), Napata (1000–300 BC), and Meroë (300 BC–300 AD). 2. Khartoum, Kordofan, Darfur, Eastern Nile, Northern Nile, and Blue Nile. 3. General Gordon earned the nickname “Chinese” in his exploits during the Taiping Rebellion (1850–64). 4. On November 5, 1883, The Mahdi destroyed an Egyptian army of 10,000 men, which was led by British Colonel William Hicks. 5. CIA Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions: January 1 through June 30, 2003. 6. President Clinton speaking at Edgartown Elementary School, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, August 20, 1998. At Department of State. 7. The Four Feathers has been made at various times by both British and United States filmmakers. Earlier versions were released in 1915, 1921, 1929, 1939, and 1977.

194

●

Notes

8. Lost Boys of Sudan is a feature-length documentary that follows two Sudanese refugees on an amazing journey from Africa to the United States. Orphaned as young boys as a result of the civil wars, Peter Dut and Santino Chuor survived lion attacks and militia gunfire to reach a refugee camp in Kenya along with thousands of other children. From there they were chosen to go to America. Safe from physical danger and hunger, they find themselves confronted with the alienation of American suburbia. 9. The Art of Flight is a feature-length documentary that tells the story of three people: a refugee from southern Sudan, a human rights activist from northern Sudan, and an American journalist, who are all living in Cairo. The journalist is drawn in to the plight of Sudanese refugees in Cairo, many who are from Darfur. He feels compelled to write a story of substance after witnessing their abuse around Cairo. The charade of democracy-building taking place at the edge of the American empire is examined in depth and the film delves deep into questions about the nature of charity, the consequences of the American empire, and the price of transience.

Chapter 9

The Syrian Arab Republic

1. UNSC Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973) calls for a Ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War and the implementation of Resolution 242. 2. UNSC Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) calls for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conf lict.” This was made following the end of the 1967 War. The interpretation of the resolution has been controversial, as the French version of the resolution implies that Israel should withdraw from ALL the territories: Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conf lit. Thus the dispute about the Resolution is whether Israel is required to retreat from all the territories it has captured, or whether it would still comply with the resolution by retreating from just some. 3. UNSC Resolution 425 was implemented after 1978 Coastal Road Massacre terrorist attack on an Israeli bus in the Tel-Aviv area (which resulted in the death of 37 Israelis and the injury of 76 more). The resolution came after the IDF entered southern Lebanon to clear out the PLO terrorist bases that were located south of the Litani River. Resolution 425 led to the formation of UNIFIL. The Resolution: Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries; Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory; Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government

Notes

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

●

195

of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from member states. Abrahms, Max. When Rogues Defy Reason: Bashar’s Syria. Middle East Quarterly, 2003, 10, 4, Fall, 45–55. Ibid. Ibid. Kass, Lee. Syria after Lebanon: The Growing Syrian Missile Threat. Middle East Quarterly, 2005, 12, 4, Fall, 25–34. This was pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. A very well-known film that features Syria is Paradise (1982) that was made by Canada. There is an interesting film length documentary Crude (2003) that takes a satirical look at globalization and the media in relation to oil in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Although outside the parameters of this book, it is worthy of note. Statement of Murhaf Houejati to the Third public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 9, 2003. Ibid. CIA. Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions: January 1 through June 30, 2003.

Chapter 10

Conclusion

1. Oklahoma! (1955), Flying High II: The Sequel (1982), Into The Night (1985), Not Without My Daughter (1991), Cover-Up (1991), and The House of Sand and Fog (2003). 2. Pipes, Daniel. The Tarbabies of American Politics. National Review, November 16, 1992. 3. Ibid. 4. Sciolino, Elaine. Iran Declares Its Nuclear Plan Nonnegotiable. New York Times, January 5, 2006. 5. Rubin, Michael. Iran Means What It Says. January 2, 2006. http://www. meforum.org/article/885 6. US Department of State, Office of International Information Programs. Information Resource Center, Office of Public Affairs, US Consulate General, Sydney. May 15, 2006. 7. Ibid. 8. St John, Ronald Bruce. Libya and the United States: Elements of a PerformanceBased Roadmap. Middle East Policy, 2003, 10, 3, Fall, 144–154. 9. Geldenhuys, Deon. The Rule-Breaking Conduct of Qaddafi’s Libya. Strategic Review for Southern Africa, 2003, 25, 2, Nov., 55–77. 10. President George W Bush. Remarks on Efforts to Globally Promote Women’s Human Rights. March 12, 2004. The American Presidency Project.

196

●

Notes

11. McKeeby, David I. US Announces Plans to Restore Diplomatic Ties with Libya. Libya to be removed from list of state sponsors of terror, says Rice. US Department of State, Washington File. May 15, 2006. 12. Ibid. 13. Zunes, Stephen. Lockerbie Verdict Unlikely to Bring Change. Foreign Policy In Focus. February 2001. 14. The plot of Tom Clancy’s 1994 novel, Debt of Honour, had 747 crashed into the Capitol building to assassinate the president. 15. Huck, Peter. Hollywood Goes to War. The Age. September 16, 2002. 16. Hamod, Sam. Reagan Redux: Bush and Ashcroft, Lies All The Way. Alternative News.Com. August 4, 2003. 17. Robb cites the made for television films: The Tuskegee Airmen (1995), Afterburn (1992), and A Dangerous Life (1988) as having been “selfcensoring.” 18. Gallup. World Opinion Survey February 6–9, 2006. 19. Ibid. 20. These survey results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,002 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted February 6–9, 2006. According to Gallup, results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. Question: “Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of [RANDOM ORDER] very favourable, mostly favourable, mostly unfavourable, or very unfavourable? How about [INSERT NEXT ITEM]?” 21. The data for Syria comes from Gallup Poll Social Series: World Affairs February 7–10, 2005 as it was not asked in the 2006 survey. 22. Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. 23. Reagan’s stance in this conf lict, and later over Nicaragua, became known as the “Reagan Doctrine,” which held that the United States should assist in any insurgency against Communist dictatorships. 24. Zunes, Stephen. The US Response to Middle East Terrorism. Global Dialogue, 2000, 2, 4, Autumn, 97–106. 25. Ganguly, Sumit. Pakistan, the Other Rogue Nation. Current History, 2004, 103, 672, Apr., 147–150. 26. The real-life SAIK A is a Syrian-backed Palestinian militia. 27. The keffiyeh is a cotton cloth usually white or chequered fastened by a band and traditionally worn by Arab Bedouin. In Palestine it is commonly red and white or black and white and has become a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. 28. The Oslo Peace Accords were a series of agreements between the government of Israel and the PLO and a significant step for the peace process in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conf lict. The Declaration of Principles outlined by the Oslo Accords has been the foundation of all of the ensuing peace negotiations.

Notes

●

197

29. The poll was conducted shortly after the Hamas political group won a majority of the parliamentary seats in the recent Palestinian elections. 30. Gingrich, Newt. Rogue State Department. Foreign Policy, 2003, 137, July– Aug., 42–48. 31. Blau, Judith R. The Leading Rogue State. Southern Sociological Society, 2003. 32. Hersh, Seymour M. The Iran Plans: Would President Bush Go to War to Stop Tehran from Getting the Bomb? The New Yorker. April 17, 2006. 33. Gallup Poll #147G. January 22, 1980. Question: “You notice that the 10 boxes on this card go from the highest position of plus five—for a country you have a very FAVOR ABLE opinion of—all the way down to the lowest position of minus five—for a country you have a very UNFAVOR ABLE opinion of. How far up the scale or how far down the scale would you rate the following nations . . . Iran?” 2838 respondents answered. Results: +5 (0.92%), +4 (0.39%), +3 (0.92%), +2 (1.94%), +1 (3.14%), −1 (7.15%), −2 (5.00%), −3 (8.42%), −4 (9.20%), −5 (59.87%), Don’t Know (3.07%). 34. Gallup’s annual World Affairs Poll, conducted February 6–9, 2006. 35. Solomon, Hussein and Swart, Gerrie. Libya’s Foreign Policy in Flux. African Affairs, 2005, 104, 416, July, 469–492. 36. Gallup. Surveys February 9–12, 2006. (Question: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?) 37. Gallup. Surveys January 20–22, 2006. (Question: Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?) 38. Gallup. Surveys February 25–27, 2005. (Question: If the US government decides to take military action in the following countries, would you favour or oppose it? How about in Syria?) and April 22–24, 2003 (Question: Do you think Syria’s recent actions do, or do not, justify a US war against Syria?) 39. Parkhurst, Jocelyn Mary. The Continuity of Images from the Dependent of the Enemy to the Rogue State: Iraq and North Korea’s Acquisition of Deterrence Capabilities. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2004, 65, 8, Feb., 3148–A.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Books Abelson, Donald E. American Think-Tanks and Their Role in US Foreign Policy. St. Martin’s Press, 1996. Andrew, Jack. Inside Putin’s Russia. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004. Arnold, Guy. The Maverick State: Gaddafi and the New World Order. Continuum International Group, 1996. Ball, George W. Error and Betrayal in Lebanon: An Analysis of Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon and the Implications for US-Israeli Relations. Foundation for Middle East Peace, Washington DC, 1984. Bandura, A. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973. ———. Principles of Behavior Modification. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1969. ———. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1986. ———. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York, 1977. ———. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1977. Bandura, A. and Walters, R. Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1963. Barilleaux, Ryan J. and Stuckey, Mary E. (Eds.). Leadership and the Bush Presidency: Prudence or Drift in an Era of Change. Praeger, New York, 1992. Bill, James A. and Springborg, Robert. Politics in the Middle East. Harper Collins College, New York, 1994. Blum, William. Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. Common Courage Press, Canada, 2005. Brehm, Sharon S. and Kassin, Saul M. Social Psychology. 2nd Edition, Houghton Miff lin,, Massachusetts USA, 1993. Brown, Carl L. Diplomacy in the Middle East: The International Relations of Regional and Outside Powers. I.B. Tauris, UK, 2001. ———. International Politics and the Middle East. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984.

200

●

Bibliography

Burchill, Scott (Ed.). Theories of International Relations. Deakin University. Palgrave, New York, 1996. Bush, George and Scowcroft, Brent. A World Transformed. Knopf, 1998. Bush, George H.W. All the Best, George Bush: My Life and Other Writings. Scribner, New York, 1999. Chomsky, Noam. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. South End Press, Boston, 1989. ———. 9–11. Seven Stories Press, Canada, 2001. ———. World Orders, Old and New. Pluto Press, London, 1994. Cohen, Warren. America’s Failing Empire: US Foreign Relations Since the Cold War (America’s Recent Past). Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2005. Cooke, Alistair. Alistair Cooke’s America. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, UK, 2002. Corkin, Stanley. Cowboys as Cold Warriors: The Western and US History. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2004. Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing About Film. 5th Edition. Pearson Longman, 2004. Custen, G. How Hollywood Constructed Public History. New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press. 1992. Daniel, Elton L. The History of Iran. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 2000. Daugherty, William J. In the Shadow of the Ayatollah: A CIA Hostage in Iran. Naval Institute Press, 2001. Dixon, Wheeler Winston (Ed.). Film and Television After 9/11. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 2004. Dorfman, Ariel and Mattelart, Armand. How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic. International General, 2nd Edition, 1984. (Originally published in 1971). Draper, Theodore. Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affairs. Hill and Wang, New York, 1991. Duffy, Michail and Goodgame, Dan. Marching in Place: The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1992. Esposito, John L. (Ed.) The Iranian Revolution: Its Global Impact. Florida International University Press, Miami, 1990. Fasulo, Linda. An Insider’s Guide to the UN. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2003. Freedman, Robert O. (Ed.). The Middle East from the Iran-Contra Affair to the Intifada. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1991. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, New York, 1992. George, Alexander (Ed.). Western State Terrorism. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991. Giroux, H. Breaking tnto Movies: Film and the Culture of Politics. Blackwell, Oxford, 2002. Green, John Robert. The Presidency of George Bush. University Press of Kansas, 2000. Green, Philip. Cracks in the Pedestal: Ideology and Gender in Hollywood. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1998.

Bibliography

●

201

Griffiths, John C. Hostage: The History, Facts & Reasoning Behind Hostage Taking. André Deutsch, London, 2003. Hafez, Kai (Ed.). Islam and the West in the Mass Media: Fragmented Images in a Globalizing World. Hampton Press, Cresskill, New Jersey, 2000. Harris, David. The Crisis: The President, the Prophet, and the Shah—1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam. Little, Brown, New York and Boston, 2004. Hepworth, David. The Secret History of Entertainment. Fourth Estate,, London, UK 2004. Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, New York, 1988. Herman, Edward S. and McChesney, Robert W. The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism. Cassell, London, 1997. Herman, Edward S. The Myth of the Liberal Media. Peter Lang, New York, 1999. Hill, Michael. The Policy Process in the Modern State. Prentice Hall/ Harvester Whestsheaf, Great Britain, 1997. Howlett, Michael and Ramesh, M. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon and Schuster. New York, 2003. ———. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. Hyams, Joe. Flight of the Avenger: George Bush at War. Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, New York, 1991. Jeffords, Susan. Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994. Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. 2nd Edition. Metropolitan, Owl Books, New York, USA, 2004. Jones, Charles O. The Trusteeship Presidency: Jimmy Carter and the United States Congress. LSU Press, Baton Rouge, 1988. Jordan, Hamilton. Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency. Putnam, New York, 1982 Kahf, Mohja. Western Representation of the Muslim Woman. From Termagant to Odalisque. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1999. Keane, Stephen. Disaster Movies: The Cinema of Catastrophe. Wallf lower Press, London, 2001. Kennedy, Robert F. Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. McCall Corporation, New York, 1968. Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. John Wiley & Sons, Canada, 2004. Klare, Michael. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1995. Knightley, Philip. The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero & MythMaker from the Crimea to Iraq. 3rd Edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2004.

202

●

Bibliography

Kurzman, Charles. The Unthinkable Revolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, and London, 2004. Laqueur, Walter. Terrorism: A Study of National and International Political Violence. Little, Brown, Boston-Toronto, 1977. Lenczowski, George. American Presidents and the Middle East. Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1990. Lieberman, Trudy. Slanting the Story: The Forces That Shape the News. New Press, New York, 2000. Mahmoody, Betty. Not Without My Daughter. St. Martin’s Press, New York, USA, 1987. Mann, James. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. Viking Books, New York, 2004. Manning, Peter. Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism: Reporting Arabic and Muslim People in Sydney Newspapers. Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney, 2004. McAlister, Melani. Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945–2000. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2001. Michalak, Stanley J. Jr. Competing Conceptions of American Foreign Policy: Worldviews in Conflict. Harper Collins,New York 1992. Miller, T., Govil, N., McMuria, J., and Maxwell, R. Global Hollywood. BFI, London, 2001. Morley, Morris and McGillion, Chris (Eds.). Cuba, the United States, and the Post-Cold War World: The International Dimensions of the WashingtonHavana Relationship. University Press of Florida, USA, 2005. ———. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba after the Cold War, 1989–2001. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalisation. Routledge, London, 2004. Palmer, Patricia. The Lively Audience: A Study of Children around the TV Set. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1986. Philo, Greg and Berry, Mike. Bad News From Israel. Pluto Press, London, 2004. Pollack, Kenneth M. The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and America. Random House, New York. 2004. Prince, Stephen (Ed.). Screening Violence. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 2000. Qaddafi, Muammar. The Green Book. 1976. Reich, Walter (Ed.). Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington DC, 1998. Richards, Alan and Waterbury, John. A Political Economy of the Middle East. Westview Press, USA, 1996. Robb, David L. Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies. Prometheus Books. Amherst, New York, 2004. Roberts, Adam and Kingsbury, Benedict (Eds.). United Nations, Divided World: The UN’s Roles in International Relations. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.

Bibliography

●

203

Rose, David. Guantánamo: The War on Human Rights. New Press, New York, 2004. Rosenbaum, J. Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Films We Can See. Wallf lower Press, London, 2000. Rubin, Michael. Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos. Palgrave, New York, 2005. Ryan, M. and Kellner, D. Camera Politics: The Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1988. Said, Edward. Orientalism. Vintage Books, New York, USA, 1979. Saikal, Amin. The Rise and Fall of the Shah. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980. Shaheen, Jack G. Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture, Georgetown University Centre for Muslim Studies, 1997. ———. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. Olive Branch Press, New York, 2001. ———. The TV Arab. Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Ohio, 1984. Shukri, Muhammad Aziz. International Terrorism: A Legal Critique. Amana Book, Brattleboro, Vermont, 1991. Sick, Gary. All Fall Down: America’s Tragic Encounter with Iran. Penguin Books, New York, 1986. ———. October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan. Random House, New York, 1991. Sklar, Robert. Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies. (Revised and Updated). Vintage Books, New York, 1994. Sorel, Georges. Reflections on Violence. Peter Smith, New York, 1941. Sterling, Claire. The Terror Network. Reader’s Digest Press, New York, 1981. Sweetman, John. The Oriental Obsession. Islamic Inspiration in British and American Art and Architecture 1500–1920. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991. Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.M. For Modesty’s Sake? Barjesteh, Meeuwes and Syntax, The Netherlands, 1996. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978. ———. Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1962. (Original work was published 1934). Wardlaw, Grant. Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics, and Counter-Measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982. Wertsch, J.V. Cultural, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985. Wight, Gabriele and Porter, Brian (Eds.). International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester University Press, London, 1994. Williams, Jeremy. Don’t They Know It’s Friday? Cross-Cultural Considerations for Business & Life in the Gulf. Motivate. Dubai, UAE, 1998. Wills, Garry. Reagan’s America. Penguin Books, New York, USA, 1988.

204

●

Bibliography

Windschuttle, Keith. The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Murder Our Past. Free Press, New York, 1997. ———. The Killing of History: How a Discipline Is Being Murdered by Literary Critics and Social Theorists. Macleary Press, Paddington, NSW, Australia, 1996. Zabih, Sepehr. The Mossadegh Era: Roots of the Iranian Revolution. Lake View Press, Chicago Illinois, 1986. Zemon Davis, Natalie. Slaves on Screen: Film and Historical Vision. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.

Journal Articles Abrahms, Max. When Rogues Defy Reason: Bashar’s Syria. Middle East Quarterly, 10, 4, Fall 2003, 45–55. Adejo, Armstrong M. Gadaffi and Pan-Africanism: Misgivings or Misrepresentation? African Journal of International Affairs and Development, 2003, 8, 1, 47–66. Ahrari, M. Ehsan. “Rogue States” and NMD/TMD: Policies in Search of a Rationale? Mediterranean Quarterly, 12, 2, Spring 2001, 83–100. al-Qaddafi, Saif Aleslam. Libyan-American Relations. Middle East Policy, 10, Spring 2003. Anderson, Lisa. A Last Resort, an Expedient and an Experiment: Statehood and Sovereignty in Libya. Journal of Libyan Studies, 2, 2, Winter 2001, 14–25. Bilgin, Pinar and Morton, Adam David. From “Rogue” to “Failed” States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism. Politics, 24, 3, Sept. 2004, 169–180. Black, Commander Craig R. US Navy. Deterring Libya the Strategic Culture of Muammar Qaddafi. The Counterproliferation Papers. Future Warfare Series No 8. USAF Counterproliferation Centre, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Blau, Judith R. The Leading Rogue State. Southern Sociological Society, 2003. Bleiker, Roland. A Rogue Is a Rogue Is a Rogue: US Foreign Policy and the Korean Nuclear Crisis. International Affairs, 2003, 79, 4, July, 719–737. Blinken, Antony J. From Preemption to Engagement. Survival, 2003–2004, 45, 4, Winter, 33–60. Bolton, John R. The Bush Administration’s Forward Strategy for Nonproliferation. Chicago Journal of International Law, 2004, 5, 2, Winter, 395–404. Bray, John. Sanctions: Sticks to Beat Rogue States. World Today, 52, 8–9, Aug.–Sept. 1996, 206. Bronski, Michael. The Truth About Reagan and AIDS, 2004. Bundy, William P. Foreign Affairs, Spring 1981. Caprioli, Mary and Trumbore, Peter F. Identifying “Rogue” States and Testing Their Interstate Conf lict Behavior. European Journal of International Relations, 9, 3, Sept. 2003, 377–406.

Bibliography

●

205

———. Rhetoric versus Reality: Rogue States in Interstate Conf lict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 5, Oct. 2005, 770–791. Carruthers, Susan L. Bringing It All Back Home: Hollywood Returns to War. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 14, 1, Spring 2003, 167–182. Castillo, Jasen J. Nuclear Terrorism: Why Deterrence Still Matters. Current History, 102, 668, Dec. 2003, 426–431. Castles, Stephen. Hierarchical Citizenship in a World of Unequal NationStates. Political Science and Politics, 38, 4, Oct. 2005, 689–692. Cerami, C. Rogue States and Terrorists Crash the Nuclear Club. Insight, 10, 18, May 2, 1994, 6–10. Center for Contemporary Conf lict. Comparing Threats from Saddam and bin Laden. Strategic Insights, 1, 7, Sept. 2002. Cotton, James. The Second North Korean Nuclear Crisis. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57, 2, July 2003, 261–279. Crampton, Andrew and Power, Marcus. Frames of Reference on the Geopolitical Stage: Saving Private Ryan and the Second World War/Second Gulf War Intertext. Geopolitics, 10, 2, Summer 2005, 244–265. de Zoysa, Richard and Newman, Otto. Globalization, Soft Power and the Challenge of Hollywood. Contemporary Politics, 8, 3, Sept. 2002, 185–202. Dokhanchi, Khalil. U.S. Foreign Policy towards Rogue States and Weapon Proliferation. Journal of Peace Research, 33, 2, May 1996, 241. Dorff, Robert H. and Cerami, Joseph R. Deterrence and Competitive Strategies: A New Look at an Old Concept. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 11, 2, Autumn 2000, 109–123. Dumbrell, John. Was There a Clinton Doctrine? President Clinton’s Foreign Policy Reconsidered. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 13, 2, June 2002, 43–56. Gabel, Josiane. The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons after September 11. Washington Quarterly, 28, 1, Winter 2004–2005, 181–195. Ganguly, Sumit. Pakistan, the Other Rogue Nation. Current History, 103, 672, Apr. 2004, 147–150. Geldenhuys, Deon. Beyond the Rogue State Paradigm. South African Journal of International Affairs, 9, 1, Summer 2002, 75–88. ———. The Rule–Breaking Conduct of Qaddafi’s Libya. Strategic Review for Southern Africa, 25, 2, Nov. 2003, 55–77. Gilboa, Eytan. The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International Relations. Political Communication, 22, 1, Jan.–Mar. 2005, 27–44. Gingrich, Newt. Rogue State Department. Foreign Policy, 137, July–Aug. 2003, 42–48. Grenier, R. Hollywood’s Foreign Policy. National Interest, 24, Summer 1991, 67–77. Hajjar, Sami G. Framing a Rogue: U.S.-Iran Relations in the Gulf. Strategic Review, 25, 4, Fall 1997, 19. Hamod, Sam. Reagan Redux: Bush and Ashcroft, Lies All The Way. Today’s Alternative News, 4 August 2003.

206

●

Bibliography

Herring, Eric. Rogue Rage: Can We Prevent Mass Destruction? Journal of Strategic Studies, 23, 1, Mar. 2000, 188–212. Hoyt, P.D. The Rogue State Image in American Foreign Policy. Global Society, 14, 2, Apr. 2000, 297–310. Hozic, A. Uncle Sam Goes to Siliwood: Of Landscapes, Spielberg and Hegemony. Review of International Political Economy, 6, 3, Fall 1999, 289–312. Hughes, James H. The Ballistic Missile Threat: Defense and Technology. Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 26, 1, Spring 2001, 259–268. Huiskamp, Gerard. Minority Report on the Bush Doctrine. New Political Science, 26, 3, Sept. 2004, 389–415. Johnstone, Rick. The Mussolini Fallacy on Iraq. Telos, 126, Winter 2003, 153–156. Kagan, Robert. The World and President Bush. Survival, 43, 1, Spring 2001, 7–16. Kapur, Ashok. Rogue States and the International Nuclear Order. International Journal, 51, 3, Summer 1996, 420. Kass, Lee. Syria after Lebanon: The Growing Syrian Missile Threat. Middle East Quarterly, 12, 4, Fall 2005, 25–34. Katzman, Kenneth. Iran, Russia, and the New Muslim States. Caspian Crossroads, Spring 1995. Kellner, Douglas. Preemptive Strikes and the War on Iraq: A Critique of Bush Administration Unilateralism and Militarism. New Political Science, 26, 3, Sept. 2004, 417–440. King, Desmond. Americans in the Dark? Recent Hollywood Representations of the Nation’s History. Government and Opposition, 38, 2, Spring 2003, 163–180. Kuzma, Lynn M. and Haney, Patrick J. And . . . Action! Using Film to Learn about Foreign Policy. International Studies Perspectives, 2, 1, Feb. 2001, 33–50. Kyle, Ken. U.S. Nationalism and the Axis of Evil: U.S. Policy and Rhetoric on North Korea. Humanity and Society, 25, 3–4, Aug.–Nov. 2001, 239–262. Lake, Anthony. “Confronting Backlash States.” Foreign Affairs, 73, 2, Mar./ Apr. 1994, 46. Lewis, Bernard. The New York Review of Books, 29, 11, June 24, 1982. ———. The New York Review of Books, 29, 13, Aug. 12, 1982. Lindley, Dan. What I Learned Since I Stopped Worrying and Studied the Movie: A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. Political Science and Politics, 34, 3, Sept. 2001, 663–667. Lisle, Debbie and Pepper, Andrew. The New Face of Global Hollywood: Black Hawk Down and the Politics of Meta-Sovereignty. Cultural Politics, 1, 2, July 2005, 165–191. Litwak, Robert S. The New Calculus of Pre-Emption. Survival, 44, 4, Winter 2002–2003, 53–80. Mandel, Daniel. Muslims on the Silver Screen. Middle East Quarterly, 8, 2, Spring 2001, 19–30.

Bibliography

●

207

Mandelbaum, M. US Foreign Policy and Nuclear Weapons Today. SAIS Review, 27, 1, Winter–Spring 1997, 73–92. Martin, Curtis H. Rewarding North Korea: Theoretical Perspectives on the 1994 Agreed Framework. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 1, Jan. 2002, 51–68. Medved, Michael. That’s Entertainment? Hollywood’s Contribution to AntiAmericanism Abroad. National Interest, 68, Summer 2002, 5–14. Mueller, J. The Common Sense. National Interest, 47, 81–88, Spring 1997. Mueller, J. and Mueller, Karl. The Methodology of Mass Destruction: Assessing Threats in the New World Order. Journal of Strategic Studies, 23, 1, Mar. 2000, 163–187. Muhula, Raymond. Rogue Nations, States of Concern, and Axes of Evil: Examining the Politics of Disarmament in a Changing Geopolitical Context. Mediterranean Quarterly, 14, 4, Fall 2003, 76–95. Noakes, John A. Racializing Subversion: The FBI and the Depiction of Race in Early Cold War Movies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 26, 4, July 2003, 728–749. O’Connor, Brendon. Are We All Americans Now? The Superpower and Its Critics. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39, 2, July 2004, 421–426. O’Connor, Maj and Edward A. USAF. Russian-Iranian Relations: Outlook for Cooperation with the “Axis of Evil.” Strategic Insights, 4, 8, Aug. 2005. Offner, Arnold A. Rogue President, Rogue Nation: Bush and U.S. National Security. Diplomatic History, 29, 3, June 2005, 433–435. O’Neil, Andrew. Confronting the Reality of a Nuclear North Korea: The Challenge of Shrinking Policy Options. Policy and Society, 23, 2, 2004, 101–128. ———. Learning to Live with Uncertainty: The Strategic Implications of North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Capability. Contemporary Security Policy, 26, 2, Aug. 2005, 317–334. Orlov, Vladimir A. and Vinnikov, Alexander. The Great Guessing Game: Russia and the Iranian Nuclear Issue. Washington Quarterly, 28, 2, Spring 2005, 49. Parkhurst, Jocelyn Mary. The Continuity of Images from the Dependent of the Enemy to the Rogue State: Iraq and North Korea’s Acquisition of Deterrence Capabilities. Humanities and Social Sciences, 65, 8, Feb. 2004, 3148-A. Paules, Marian Helen. U.S. Relations with Iran: American Identity, Foreign Policy, and the Politics of Representation. Humanities and Social Sciences, 64, 2, Aug. 2003, 642-A. Pethes, Nicholas. “Thinking Ahead” Fiction as Prediction in Popular Scripts on Political Scenarios. Soziale Systeme, 9, 2, 2003, 272–284. Pipes, Daniel. The Tarbabies of American Politics. National Review, November 16, 1992. Pollard, Tom. The Hollywood War Machine. New Political Science, 24, 1, Mar. 2002, 121–139. Rademaker, Stephen G. Use of Force after 9/11. Chicago Journal of International Law, 5, 2, Winter 2004, 461–465.

208

●

Bibliography

Record, Jeffrey. The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq. Parameters, 33, 1, Spring 2003, 4–21. Roehrig, Terence. “One Rogue State Crisis at a Time!” The United States and North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program. World Affairs, 165, 4, Spring 2003, 155–178. Roy, O. Tensions in Iran: The Future of the Islamic Revolution. Middle East Report, 28, 2, Summer 1998, 38–43. Rubin, Barry. U.S. Foreign Policy and Rogue States. MERIA: Middle East Review of International Affairs, 3, 3, Sept. 1999, 72–77. Rubin, Michael. Iran Means What It Says. Middle East Forum. Jan. 2, 2006. Schwenniger, S. Clinton’s World Order. Nation, 266, 5, Feb. 16, 1998, 17–20. ———. The Rift Over Rogues. National, 263, 10, Oct. 7, 1996, 21–24. Scott, Allen J. Hollywood and the World: The Geography of Motion–Picture Distribution and Marketing. Review of International Political Economy, 11, 1, Feb. 2004, 33–61. Segell, Glen. Counter-Proliferating the Rogue States. Defense and Security Analysis, 20, 4, Dec. 2004, 343–354. ———. A Ref lection on War against Rogue States. Review of International Affairs, 3, 3, Spring 2004, 479–494. Shaheen, Jack G. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 588, July 2003, 171–193. Siracusa, Joseph M. and Coleman, David G. Scaling the Nuclear Ladder: Deterrence from Truman to Clinton. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54, 3, Nov. 2000, 277–296. Snyder, Robert S. The Myth of Preemption: More than a War against Iraq. Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, 47, 4, Fall 2003, 653–660. Solomon, Hussein and Swart, Gerrie. Libya’s Foreign Policy in Flux. African Affairs, 104, 416, July 2005, 469–492. St. John, Ronald Bruce. Libya and the United States: Elements of a PerformanceBased Roadmap. Middle East Policy, 10, 3, Fall 2003, 144–154. Szewczyk, Bart M.J. Pre-emption, Deterrence, and Self-Defence: A Legal and Historical Assessment. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18, 1, Apr. 2005, 119–135. Vanderbush, Walt and Hanley, Patrick. Clinton, Congress, and Cuba Policy between Two Codifications: The Changing Executive-Legislative Relationship in Foreign Policy Making. Congress and the Presidency, 29, 2, Autumn 2002, 171–194. Veit, Raphael. When Good States Go Bad. AQ—Journal of Contemporary Analysis, 75, 2, Mar.–Apr. 2003, 33–37. Webber, Julie. Independence Day as a Cosmopolitan Moment: Teaching International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6, 3, Aug. 2005, 374–392. Xizhen, Zhang and Brown, Eugene. Policies toward North Korea: A Time for New Thinking. Journal of Contemporary China, 9, 25, Nov. 2000, 535–545. Zaborski, Jason. Deterring a Nuclear Iran. Washington Quarterly, 28, 3, Summer 2005, 153–167.

Bibliography

●

209

Zoubir, Yahia H. Libya in US Foreign Policy: From Rogue State to Good Fellow? Third World Quarterly, 23, 1, Feb. 2002, 31–53. Zunes, Stephen. The Function of Rogue States in U.S. Middle East Policy. Middle East Policy, 5, 2, 1997, 150. ———. Lockerbie Verdict Unlikely to Bring Change. Foreign Policy in Focus. February 2001. ———. The US Response to Middle East Terrorism. Global Dialogue, 2, 4, Autumn 2000, 97–106.

Newspaper Articles [Anon.]. On Screen, Bad Boys Light Up. Sydney Morning Herald, August 10, 2005, page 3. Fisk, Robert. Victims of Our Own High-Flown Morality the “Good Guys” Who Can Do No Wrong. The Independent. May 1, 2004. Goodnough, Abby. Tensions Rise as More Flee Cuba for US. New York Times. December 18, 2005. Hersh, Seymour M. The Iran Plans: Would President Bush Go to War to Stop Tehran from Getting the Bomb? New Yorker. April 17, 2006. Huck, Peter. Hollywood Goes to War. The Age. September 16, 2002. Maddox, Gary. Hollywood Finds a Role for Father Figures. Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, May 28, 2005, 13. Risen, James. CIA Sees a North Korean Missile Threat. New York Times. February 3, 1999. Sciolino, Elaine. Iran Declares Its Nuclear Plan Nonnegotiable. New York Times. January 5, 2006.

Gallup Opinion Surveys January 22, 1980. Poll #147G. March 24, 1980. Poll #151G. April 17 to April 18, 1986. May 20–22, 1994. February 7–10, 2005. Social Series: World Affairs February 25–27, 2005. January 20–22, 2006. February 6–9, 2006. World Opinion Survey February 9–12, 2006. February 20, 2006.

Songs Joel, Billy. We Didn’t Start the Fire. Album: Storm Front. 1989. Simply Red. Money’s Too Tight to Mention. Album: Picture Book. 1985. Suicide Is Painless from the motion picture MASH. 1970.

210

●

Bibliography

Audiotapes Ronald Reagan and the Prophecy of Armageddon. Produced by Joe Cuomo. 1984. Falwell, Jerry. Nuclear War and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Produced by Old-Time Gospel Hour. 1983.

Television Series Commander-in-Chief. 2005–2006. South Park. 1997–2006. Thunderbirds. 1965–1966. West Wing (The). 1999–2006.

Made For Television Movies Afterburn. 1992. A Dangerous Life. 1988. Tuskegee Airmen (The). 1995. Voyage of Terror: The Achille Lauro Affair. 1990.

Operas Abduction from the Seraglio (The). Death of Klinghoffer.

Documentaries Altered Statesmen: Reagan. 2003. Art of Flight (The). 2005. Control Room (The). 2004. Crude. 2003. Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore. 2004. Lost Boys of Sudan. 2003. Operation Hollywood. Emilio Pacull. 2005. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. 2004. Truth, Lies and Intelligence. 2005. Unconstitutional. Robert Greenwald. 2005. Uncovered—The War on Iraq. Robert Greenwald. 2005. Weapons of Mass Deception. Danny Schechter. 2004. Without My Daughter. 2002.

Filmography

Film Title

Year

A Few Good Men Air Force One Aladdin Ambassador (The) American President (The) An Officer and a Gentleman Animal House Apocalypse Now Armageddon Back to the Future Bad Boys II Battle for Algiers Behind Enemy Lines Ben Hur Black Hawk Down Blink of an Eye Blues Brothers (The) Bright Lights, Big City Broadcast News Broken Arrow Catch-22 Clear and Present Danger Courage under Fire Cover-Up Crimson Tide Damascus Nights Damascus Road

1992 1997 1992 1984 1995 1982 1978 1979 1998 1985 2003 1965 2001 1959 2001 1991 1980 1988 1987 1996 1970 1994 1996 1991 1995 1998 1999

212

●

Filmography

Film Title

Year

Day the Earth Stood Still (The) Death Before Dishonor Deep Impact Deer Hunter (The) Delta Force (The) Delta Force III—The Killing Game Diamonds Are Forever Die Another Day Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Enemy of the State Eve of Destruction Executive Decision Failsafe First Strike Flying High Flying High II: The Sequel Forrest Gump Four Feathers (The) Frantic From Here to Eternity Full Metal Jacket General’s Daughter (The) GI Jane Godfather II (The) GoldenEye Goldfinger Good Night, and Good Luck Gunfight at the OK Corral Half Moon Street Hell Squad High Noon Hostage Hot Shots! Hot Shots! Part Deux House of Sand and Fog (The)

1951 1987 1998 1978 1986 1991 1971 2002 1964 1998 1991 1996 1964 1984 1980 1982 1994 2002 1988 1953 1987 1999 1997 1974 1995 1964 2005 1957 1986 1985 1952 1986 1991 1993 2003

Filmography Film Title

Year

Human Shield (The) Hunt for the Red October (The) Independence Day Into the Night Jurassic Park III Khartoum Killing Streets Kramer vs. Kramer Last Detail (The) Lawrence of Arabia Lone Star Long Kiss Goodnight (The) Longest Day (The) Mars Attacks! MASH Memphis Belle Men in Black Men in Black II Men of Honour Ministry of Vengeance Minority Report Miracle Mulan Munich My Fair Lady Naked Gun (The) Never Say Never Again Nighthawks Not Quite Jerusalem Not Without My Daughter Octopus Oklahoma! Outbreak Paradise Patriot Games Patton

1992 1990 1996 1985 2001 1966 1991 1979 1973 1962 1996 1996 1962 1996 1970 1990 1997 2002 2000 1989 2002 2004 1998 2005 1964 1988 1983 1981 1986 1991 2000 1955 1995 1982 1992 1970

●

213

214

●

Filmography

Film Title

Year

Peacemaker (The) Peacemaker (The) Pearl Harbor Platoon Pocahontas Poseidon Adventure (The) Primary Colors Protocol Raiders of the Lost Ark Rambo III Road to Damascus Rules of Engagement (The) Sahara Saving Private Ryan Scarface Scorpion Sergeant Bilko Seventh Coin (The) Siege (The) Sound of Music (The) Space Cowboys Spy Hard Strawberry and Chocolate Sudan Sum of All Fears (The) Syrian Bride (The) Syriana Team America: World Police Ten Commandments (The) Terror Squad Thank You for Smoking Thief of Damascus Thin Red Line (The) Thirteen Days Three Kings (The) Thunderball

1984 1997 2001 1986 1995 1972 1998 1984 1981 1988 2004 2000 1943 1998 1983 1986 1996 1992 1998 1965 2000 1996 1994 1945 2002 2004 2005 2004 1956 1988 2006 1952 1998 2000 1999 1965

Filmography Film Title

Year

To Damascus Tomorrow Never Dies Top Gun Tora! Tora! Tora! Towering Inferno (The) Trading Places Trinadsat Troma’s War True Lies Twelve Monkeys U-571 United Flight 93 Wag the Dog War of the Worlds We Were Soldiers Wild Geese II

2005 1997 1986 1970 1974 1983 1937 1988 1994 1995 2000 2006 1997 2005 2002 1985

●

215

This page intentionally left blank

Index

Abduction from the Seraglio, The (opera), 8–9 Abu Ghraib, 61, 142 Achille Lauro, hijacking of, 9, 167 Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), 22–3 Adams, John, 9 Afghanistan: Bush Doctrine and, 43, 48 Clinton and, 7, 141 Hollywood’s ignoring of, 165 Mujahedeen in, 24, 48, 164–5 Operation “Enduring Freedom” and, 4, 49 public perception of, 163 Rambo III and, 165 as a Rogue State, 165 Soviet invasion of, 20, 34, 48, 53, 57–9, 121, 164–5 threat to U.S. by, 163 U.S. invasion of, 33, 43, 48, 142, 165 Aghdashloo, Shohreh, 67 Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, 155 Air Force One (film, 1997), 160 Aladdin (film, 1992), 17 Albert, Eddie, 62 Albright, Madeleine, 160 al-Qaida, 31, 48–9, 84, 94, 111–12, 140, 149, 159, 164 Altman, Robert, 122 Ambassador, The (film, 1984), 168 American President, The (film, 1995), 39, 56, 98–100, 102, 141, 161

Anderson, Gerry, 131 Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 52 Arabs, portrayal of in films, 5 Arafat, Yasser, 98, 148, 168 Arnold, Guy, 92 Art of Flight, The (documentary, 2005), 142 al-Assad, Bashar, 145–6 al-Assad, Hafez, 144, 146, 149–50 al-Assad, Rifat, 150 Axis of Evil, 31, 33, 36, 59, 129, 158, 162 Aykroyd, Dan, 63 Back to the Future (film, 1985), 45, 89–90, 95–6, 101 Bacon, Kevin, 84 Bad Boys II (film, 2003), 78–9 Baker, Rick, 63 Baldwin, Alec, 131 Bandura, Albert, 14–16 Barro, Robert, 19 Bartel, Paul, 62 Basinger, Kim, 37 Battle for Algiers (film, 1965), 8 Bay of Pigs Invasion, 73 Begin, Menachem, 19 Bening, Annette, 98 Berry, Mike, 12 bin Laden, Osama, 20, 31, 48, 117, 139, 159, 164 Bissell, Richard, 73 Black Hawk Down, 4

218

●

Index

Blair, Tony, 95 Blink of an Eye (film, 1991), 108, 110 Blix, Hans, 116, 131 Blowback (film, 2004), 48, 164 Blum, William, 169 Bogart, Humphrey, 7 Bolton, John, 40, 42, 164 Bond films, James, 36–8, 86–7, 126. See also individual films Bowie, David, 63 Brazil, 35 Broadcast News (film, 1987), 39, 95–6 Brooks, Albert, 96 Brooks, Herb, 58 Brown, L. Carl, 34, 58 Buchanan, Pat, 22–3 Burstyn, Ellen, 168 Bush, George H. W., 18, 23, 25–8, 86, 56–7, 96–7, 101–2, 108 Bush, George W.: administration of, 18, 29, 42–4, 137, 169–70 Axis of Evil of, 33, 36, 59, 129, 158, 162 Cuba and, 78, 84 Fahrenheit 9/11 and, 117 foreign policy of, 27–8 Iran and, 46, 52, 59 Iraq and, 107, 112, 116, 161, 169 Libya and, 157 North Korea and, 125, 129–32, 158 Syria and, 146–7 The Three Kings and, 114 See also War on Terror Bush Doctrine, 4, 42–4, 48, 112, 146 Cabell, Charles, 73 Caine, Michael, 96 Camp David Peace Accords, 19, 139 Canada, 29, 50, 79–80, 151 Carrera, Barbara, 37–8 Carruthers, Susan, 4 Carter, Jimmy, 18–23, 50–9, 92, 129–30 Cason, James, 84

Castro, Fidel, 17, 71–3, 75, 77–86 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): assisted coups, 33, 51, 68 Cuba and, 72–4, 77, 79, 81 definition of terrorism, 41 film portrayals of, 97, 110, 114–16, 161 Iran-Contra affair and, 56 Chapman, Christian, 93 Chechnya, 58 Cheney, Dick, 42, 107 Chile, 33 China, People’s Republic of: Bush (41) and, 25, 108 Carter and, 20 Cold War’s end and, 46 Iran and, 59–60 Khartoum and, 137 multilateral talks with, 125 public perception of, 43, 50–1, 162–3 Soviet Union and, 120–2 Thirteen Days and, 76 Tomorrow Never Dies and, 37 Chomsky, Noam, 11–12 Clinton, Bill: administration of, 28–9, 31, 47, 98–102, 112, 117, 129, 132, 141 The American President and, 98–100, 141 approval rating of, 24 bombing of Sudan ordered by, 7, 159 Cuba and, 86–7 defeat of George H. W. Bush, 27 Doctrines of, 28–9 target of al-Qaida assassination plot, 48 Wag the Dog and, 7 Clinton, Hillary, 98 Clinton-Castro accords, 79 Clooney, George, 114 Close, Glenn, 160 Coalition of the Willing, 3, 49, 106, 115 Cohen, Warren, 25

Index

●

219

Cold War: Bond films and, 36–7 end of, 19, 25–6, 33–6, 46–7, 58, 79, 160 USSR as enemy during, 153, 160 Columbus, Christopher, 71 Commander-in-Chief (television series), 8 communism, 1–2, 6, 23–5, 29–30, 36, 45, 56–7, 67, 83 computer games, 4 Connelly, Jennifer, 67 Connery, Sean, 37 containment policy, U.S., 20, 43, 47, 52, 57, 130 Control Room, The (documentary, 2004), 117 Corkin, Stanley, 9 Courage under Fire (film, 1996), 112–15 Cover-Up (film, 1991), 96, 108–10, 167 Cronenberg, David, 62 Cruise, Tom, 84 Cuba, Republic of: film portrayals of, 55–6, 76–8, 82–6 geography of, 71 history of, 71–2, 78–82, 85–7 public perception of, 71–2, 80–1, 163–4, 170 as Rogue State, 87, 155–6 U.S. policy toward, 72–9, 83–5

Delta Force (film, 1986), 39, 166 Delta Force III—The Killing Game (film, 1991), 167 Demme, Jonathan, 63 Diamonds Are Forever (film, 1971), 38 Die Another Day (film, 2002), 37, 86–7, 126 Disney, 2, 17 Dole, Bob, 98 Donaldson, Roger, 76 Dorfman, Ariel, 2, 170 Douglas, Michael, 98 Dr. Strangelove (film, 1964), 8, 45 Draper, Theodore, 56 Dreyfuss, Richard, 98 drug trafficking, 26–7, 34–5, 78–9, 81–4, 87, 127, 150, 155, 164 Dual Containment, policy of, 47–8, 117 Dubus II, Andre, 67 Dulles, Allen, 73 Duvall, Robert, 122

Damascus Nights (film, 1998), 151 Damascus Road (film, 1999), 151 Darkazanli, Ma’mun, 149 Daugherty, William J., 54 Dawa, 59 Dawn, Wes, 63 Day O’Connor, Sandra, 22 Day the Earth Stood Still, The (film, 1951), 44–5 de Zoysa, Richard, 2–3 Dearden, Basil, 137 Death of Klinghoffer (opera), 9 del Pino, Rafael, 84

Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary, 2004), 13, 117 Fail Safe (film, 1964), 45 failed states, 30, 35 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 5–6, 116 Few Good Men, A (film, 1992), 84–5 Field, Sally, 64 Film Liaison Office, 13 Fisk, Robert, 39 Flying High (film, 1980), 97 Flying High II: The Sequel (film, 1982), 39, 55, 68

Egypt, 19, 39, 50, 91–3, 135–40, 143–4 Eilts, Hermann, 93 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 72 Eldard, Ron, 67 Eve of Destruction (film, 1991), 97, 108–10 Executive Decision (film, 1996), 160

220

●

Index

Ford, Gerald, 19, 25, 54 Ford, Harrison, 97 Four Feathers, The (film, 2002), 141–2 Fox, Michael J., 89 France, 50, 81, 90, 93, 106, 143, 151, 162–3 Frantic (film, 1988), 39 Garafalo, Janeane, 131 García, Reynaldo Alfaro, 82 George, Christopher, 63 Germany, 1, 6–7, 39, 43, 46, 50, 90, 106, 140, 147, 151, 162 GI Jane (film, 1997), 101–2 Glaspie, April, 27, 107 Godfather II, The (film, 1974), 86 Goldblum, Jeff, 63 GoldenEye (film, 1995), 37, 86–7 Goldfinger (film, 1964), 38 Good Night, and Good Luck (film, 2005), 162 Goodman Jr., Robert C., 146 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 24–5, 58 Gottlieb, Carl, 63 Gould, Elliott, 122 Great Britain, 37, 50, 52, 106, 136–7 Green, Philip, 9 Guantánamo Bay, 71, 84–5 Guatemala, 33, 72, 85 Guevara, Che, 17 Gulager, Clu, 63 Gulf War, 12, 108, 112–15 Guzmán, Jacobo Arbenz, 72 Hagerty, Julie, 55 Haig, Alexander, 93 Haleva, Jerry, 109 Half Moon Street (film, 1986), 95–6 Hamas, 59, 111, 139 Hamod, Sam, 161 al-Hariri, Rafik, 150, 166 Hays, Robert, 55 Heckerling, Amy, 62 Hell Squad (film, 1985), 167 Helms-Burton Act, 79–80, 87

Henson, Jim, 62 Herman, Edward S., 12 Heston, Charlton, 137 Hezbollah, 24, 56, 59, 139, 145, 148–9 Higgins, Colin, 62 Horner, James, 67 Hot Shots! (film, 1991), 108–9, 114 Houejati, Murhaf, 148–9 House of Sand and Fog, The (film, 2003), 67–9, 154 Hudson, Rock, 22, 168 human rights: Carter and, 19–20, 54, 92 Cuba and, 81–7 Iran and, 61, 65 Iraq and, 49, 111–12 Libya and, 94–5, 156 North Korea and, 127–9 Rogue State concept and, 34–5, 40, 47, 164 United States and, 61, 168–9 Human Shield, The (film, 1992), 115 Hunter, Holly, 96 Hurt, William, 96 Hussein, Saddam, 12, 27, 30, 48–9, 68, 106–17, 144, 146, 157–60 Ice Cube, 114 Independence Day, 5 India, 43, 50, 76 Indonesia, 50 Into the Night (film, 1985), 62–3, 68 Iran, Islamic Republic of: in Axis of Evil, 36, 59 Bush (43) on, 46–7 film portrayals of, 55–6, 61–9, 154–5 history of, 51–2 Hostage Crisis, 20–1, 51–7, 61, 68–9, 93, 154 public perception of, 42, 50–1, 162–4, 169 Rademaker on, 60–1 Revolution of 1979, 20, 36, 50–3, 61, 68–9, 154

Index as Rogue State, 36, 46, 68, 70, 153–5 SAVAK secret police, 53–4 U.S. policy toward, 52–61 Iran-Contra affair, 52–7, 68 Iran-Iraq War, 54–5, 58, 61, 64, 105–7, 111 Iraq, Republic of: in Axis of Evil, 36 film portrayals of, 108–17, 157–8 history of, 105–7 invasion of Kuwait by, 27, 105–10 public perception of, 42–3, 50–1, 113, 162–4 as Rogue State, 36, 157–8 U. N. and, 110–11 U.S. policy toward, 48–9, 105–13, 115–17 See also Hussein, Saddam Iraq Liberation Act, 112 Islamic Jihad, 59, 111, 139, 145 Israel: Ahmadinejad on, 155 Arab-Israeli War, 139, 144 Camp David Accord and, 19 Cuba and, 85 film portrayals of, 109–10, 115 invasion of Lebanon by, 167 Iran and, 52, 56, 61, 69 Libya and, 94, 99, 102 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and, 160 as a nuclear power, 61, 166 public perception of, 50 Syria and, 152 U.S. foreign policy toward, 61, 94, 166 Israel/Palestine conflict, 12, 28, 47, 85, 94, 96, 108, 166–8 Jackson, Jesse, 146 Japan, 1, 43, 46, 50, 119, 121, 125, 127–9, 131 Joel, Billy, 9 John Paul II, Pope, 81

●

221

Johnson, Chalmers, 164 Johnson, Hiram, 12 Jordan, 50, 112, 150 Kahan, Saul, 63 Kaplan, William B., 63 Kasdan, Lawrence, 63 Kellerman, Sally, 122 Kelly, James A., 130 Kennedy, John F., 72–7 Kennedy, Robert, 74–7 Khan, Abdul Qadir, 146, 167 Khartoum (film, 1966), 136–7 Khomeini, Ayatollah, 53–4, 56, 58, 64 Khrushchev, Nikita, 74–6 Kim Dae-Jung, 123 Kim Il Sung, 119–21, 127, 131 Kim Jong-Il, 119–20, 127, 129, 131, 158 King, Desmond, 5 Kingsley, Ben, 67 Kinzer, Stephen, 52 Kissinger, Henry, 53 Klare, Michael, 47 Klinghoffer, Leon, 9 Knightley, Philip, 12 Korda, Zoltan, 6 Korean War, 33, 119–23, 169 Korean Workers Party (KWP), 119–20 Kouros, Alexis, 66 Kramer vs Kramer (film, 1979), 64 Kubrick, Stanley, 45 Kurdistan Workers Party, 59 Kuwait, 27, 59, 105–10, 114, 146, 157 Kvale, Paul, 18 Lahoud, Emile, 166 Lake, Anthony, 40 Landis, John, 62–3 Lawrence of Arabia (film, 1962), 8 Lebanon, 56, 59, 94, 97, 144–52, 166–7 Lenczowski, George, 56 Leonard, Elmore, 168 Lewinsky, Monica, 7, 28

222

●

Index

Lewis, Bernard, 11 Libya (The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya): declaration of independence, 90 film portrayals of, 89–90, 95–102, 156–7 history of, 90–1 public perception of, 43, 102–3 as Rogue State, 36, 95, 156–7 U.S. policy toward, 35–6, 92–5, 101–2 Lindheim, Richard, 161 Lisle, Debbie, 4 Lockerbie Pan-Am 747 crash, 94, 97, 102 Long Kiss Goodnight, The (film, 1996), 39 Lost Boys Of Sudan, The (documentary, 2003), 142 Lowe, Rob, 18 Mahdi, The, 135, 137–8, 142, 159 Mahmoody, Betty, 63–4 Mahmoody, Sayed Bozorg, 66 Mandela, Nelson, 86, 95 Marvin, Lee, 166 MASH (film, 1970), 122–3, 126 Mason, A. E. W., 141 Mattelart, Armand, 2, 170 Mazursky, Paul, 62 McCarthyism, 45 McCone, John, 74 McGill, Bruce, 63 McGillion, Chris, 79, 86 McNamara, Robert, 74–6 Mendoza, Desi, 82 Mexico, 2, 50, 71, 79 Miles, Vera, 63 Minority Report, 4–5 Miracle (film, 2004), 58–9 Misery Index, 19 Mitchum, Robert, 168 Mitterrand, François, 81 Molina, Alfred, 64–5 Money’s Too Tight to Mention (song, 1985), 9

Moore, Demi, 84, 101 Moore, Michael, 13, 117, 131 Morley, Morris, 79, 86 Morrison, Herbert, 52 Mossedeq, Mohammad, 52, 69, 72, 154 Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPAPAI), 6 Mozart, 8–9 Mubarak, Hosni, 139 Mueller, John, 3 Munich (film, 2005), 160 Muslim Brotherhood, 24, 149–50 Muslims, portrayal of in films, 5 Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory, 8, 41–2, 45 Naked Gun, The (film, 1988), 95–7, 167 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 91, 143 national missile defense (NMD) system, 41–2 Nazi propaganda films, 5, 39 Never Say Never Again (film, 1983), 36–7 New World Order, 30, 47 Newman, Otto, 2–3 Nicaragua, 20, 24, 56, 85 Nicholson, Jack, 84 Nielsen, Leslie, 97, 115 Nighthawks (film, 1981), 39 Nixon, Richard, 19–22, 25, 53–4, 57, 59 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 60, 124–5, 128–31, 151, 166 Norris, Chuck, 166 North, Oliver, 56 North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): in Axis of Evil, 36, 129–30, 158 film portrayals of, 122–3, 126, 131–3, 158–9 history of, 119–22 public perception of, 42, 50–1, 132–3, 162–4

Index as Rogue State, 36, 120, 132–3, 158–9, 170 Not Without My Daughter (film, 1991), 63–6, 68 Nuclear Proliferation pact, 19 nuclear weapons, 44–6 O’Donnell, Kenny, 76–7 Ochoa, Arnaldo, 83–4 Octopus (film, 2000), 77 Oklahoma! (film, 1955), 61–2, 68 Olivier, Laurence, 137 Olympics: 1972 Munich, 160 1980 Moscow, 20 1988 Seoul, 123 Operation Ajax, 52 Operation Desert Farewell, 107 Operation Desert Fox, 108 Operation Desert Sabre, 107 Operation Desert Shield, 107 Operation Desert Storm, 27, 69, 107, 113–16, 157 Operation Desert Strike, 108 Operation Enduring Freedom, 4 Operation Iraqi Freedom, 48–9, 115, 146 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), 19, 53, 57, 107 Oslo Peace Accords, 168 “other,” 10–11 Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (documentary, 2004), 13 Pakistan, 20, 50–1, 126, 146, 167 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 9, 24, 86, 91, 97, 110, 167–8 Palestinian Authority, 59, 168 Palestinian Islamic Jihad, 111, 130, 145 Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF), 93 Palestinians, 35, 39, 47, 61, 85, 91–4, 98, 145–8, 160, 166–70. See also Israel/Palestine conflict Panama Canal treaties, 19

●

223

Papas, Irene, 63 Paradise (film, 1982), 151 Pare, Michael, 110 Park Chung Hee, 123 Parker, Trey, 131 Patriot Games (film, 1992), 97, 102 Paynter, Robert, 63 Pearl Harbor (film, 2001), 13 Pepper, Andrew, 4 Perelman, Vadim, 67 Perkins, Carl, 63 Pethes, Nicholas, 4 Petrie, Daniel, 62 Pfeiffer, Michelle, 63 Philo, Greg, 12 Pinochet, Augusto, 2 Pipes, Daniel, 155 Platt Amendment, 71 Pleasance, Donald, 168 Poland, 50 Pollack, Kenneth, 51 Pollack, Kevin, 84 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), 86 Presley, Pricilla, 97 Primary Colors, 7 propaganda model of news media, 12 Protocol (film, 1984), 39 public opinion, American, 3, 18, 49, 163 Qaddafi, Muammar, 91–8, 156–7, 161, 169 Qaddafi, Saif al-Islam, 95 Qassim, Abdul Karim, 105 Rabb, Maxwell, 93 Rademaker, Stephen G., 60 Rafsanjani, 58 Rawlins, John, 136 Reagan, Ronald: administration of, 21–7, 30, 90–6, 108, 164 anti-communism of, 24 Back to the Future and, 90

224

●

Index

Reagan, Ronald—Continued Carter’s reelection bid against, 19, 54 Iran-Contra affair and, 52–7, 68 Iranian hostage crisis and, 51–7 Libya and, 30, 90–6, 101–2, 156, 161 Rambo III and, 165 terrorist genre films and, 170 Reagan Doctrine, 24 Reaganomics, 9, 23 Reiner, Rob, 98 Rice, Condoleezza, 42, 155, 157, 166 Ride, Sally, 22 Road to Damascus, The (film, 2004), 151 Robb, David L., 13, 109, 162 Roe vs Wade, 22 Rogue States, definition of, 34–5, 40–1, 164 Roh Tae Woo, 123 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 26, 29, 74 Rose, David, 84 Rumsfeld, Donald, 42, 106 Rusk, Dean, 74 Russia: as arms supplier, 58, 140, 151 Bond films and, 86 Cuban Missile Crisis and, 75–7 First Strike and, 147 invasion of Afghanistan, 53, 59 invasion of Chechnya, 58 Iran and, 51, 57–60 public perception of, 43, 50, 163 Rambo III and, 165 Syria and, 147, 151 See also Soviet Union Ryan, Meg, 113 el-Sadat, Anwar, 19 Sadjadi, Hadi, 63 Sahara, 6–7 Said, Edward, 10–11 Saikal, Amin, 52 SALT II treaty, 19 Salt, Waldo, 63

Sanders, Jackie Wolcott, 59–60 Saudi Arabia, 50, 63, 107, 117, 139, 163 Saving Private Ryan (film, 1998), 161–2 Scarface (film, 1983), 78 Schlesinger, Arthur, 75 Schultz, George, 161 Scott, Ridley, 4, 101 September 11, 2001, 5, 12–13, 42–8, 77, 87, 94, 112, 116–17, 146, 149, 160, 164, 170 Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, 20, 52–4, 67, 69 Shaheen, Jack, 5, 39, 115 Sheridan, Nicollette, 115 Shevardnadze, Eduard, 58 Siege, The (film, 1998), 39, 160–1 Siegel, Don, 62 Simply Red (musical group), 9 Six-Day War (1967), 140 Skerritt, Tom, 122 Social Cognition Learning Model, 15–17 Social Learning Theory, 14–18, 49 soft power, 2–3, 12, 102, 170 Somalia, 4, 35, 85 Sosna, David, 63 Sotolongo, Roberto Díaz, 83 Sound of Music, The (film, 1965), 66 South Africa, 85–6, 94 Soviet Union: Blowback and, 48 Bond movies and, 36–7 Carter and, 19–20, 54 Chomsky on, 12 collapse of, 25–6, 37–8, 46–7, 57–8, 70, 79, 86 Cuba and, 30, 36, 72–6, 85–7, 155 Dr. Strangelove and, 45 First Strike and, 147 INF treaty with, 24 invasion of Afghanistan by, 20, 34, 48, 57–8, 164–5 Iran and, 58 Iraq and, 105–6

Index Libya and, 90–1, 140 MAD theory and, 41 Miracle and, 58 North Korea and, 119–22 Rouge States and, 1, 34–8 SALT II treaty with, 19 Sterling on, 91 Sudan and, 140 Syria and, 147, 152, 159 See also Cold War Speakes, Larry, 22 Spielberg, Steven, 4–5, 89, 160–1 Spy Hard (film, 1996), 115 Steinfeld, Jake, 63 Sterling, Claire, 91–2 Stevenson, Adlai, 74 Stewart, Potter, 10 Stone, Matt, 131 Stone, Oliver, 160 Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), 24 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or Star Wars), 24 Strawberry and Chocolate (film, 1994), 82–3 Sudan (film, 1945), 136–7 Sudan, Republic of: film portrayals of, 136–8, 141–2, 159 geography of, 135 history of, 135–6, 138–41 as Rogue State, 141–2, 159, 170 U.S. policy toward, 141 Sutherland, Donald, 122 Sutherland, Kiefer, 84 Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, 147 Syriana (film, 2005), 162 Syrian Arab Republic: film portrayals of, 147, 151–2 history of, 143–4 public perception of, 163–4 as Rogue State, 152, 170 U.S. policy toward, 144, 146, 170 Syrian Bride, The (film, 2004), 151

●

225

Taliban, 4, 20, 48–9, 84 Team America: World Police (film, 2004), 131–2 Tenet, George, 128 Terror Squad (film, 1988), 95–6 terrorism, CIA definition of, 41 terrorists as enemies in film, 38–40 Tervo, Kari, 66 Thank You For Smoking (film, 2006), 18 Thief of Damascus (film, 1952), 151 Thirteen Days (film, 2000), 75–6, 87 Three Kings, The (film, 1999), 114–16 Thunderball (film, 1965), 37 Thunderbirds (television series), 131 To Damascus (film, 2005), 151 Tomorrow Never Dies (film, 1997), 37 Top Gun (film, 1986), 13 Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF), 24 Troma’s War (film, 1988), 23 True Lies (film, 1994), 39 Truth, Lies and Intelligence (documentary, 2005), 117 Twelve Monkeys (film, 1995), 45 U-571, 6, 161 Ukraine, 50 unilateralism, U.S., 35, 42–4 United Flight 93 (film, 2006), 160 United Nations, 44, 48–9, 60, 90, 107–8, 110, 116, 119, 121, 123, 147, 150 USSR. See Soviet Union Vadim, Roger, 63 Valladares, Armando, 81 Vietnam War, 4, 19, 28, 33, 69, 122–3 Voyage of Terror: The Achille Lauro Affair (television movie, 1990), 9 Vygotsky, L. S., 15 Wag the Dog, 4, 7 Wahlberg, Mark, 114 Walsh, Lawrence, 57

226

●

Index

War on Crime, 26 War on Drugs, 23, 26–7 War on Terror, 4, 36, 47–9, 84, 87, 95, 102, 112, 117, 131, 146, 149, 156, 165, 170 Washington, Denzel, 112 Watergate, 19, 21 Weapons of Mass Deception (documentary, 2004), 117 weapons of mass destruction (WMDs): in the Cold war, 41 definition of, 41 Iran and, 52, 59–61 Iraq and, 12, 49, 105–6, 110–12, 115–16, 161, 169 Libya and, 94, 102, 156–7, 169 North Korea and, 126, 131–3, 158 Rogue State concept and, 34–5, 38, 40–9, 164 Syria and, 31, 147

Weaver, Sigourney, 96 We Didn’t Start the Fire (song, 1989), 9 Weinberger, Caspar, 56–7 West Wing, The (television series), 8 We Were Soldiers, 4 Windschuttle, Keith, 11 Without My Daughter (documentary, 2002), 66 World War I, 12, 43 World War II, 1, 5–6, 22, 28, 43, 62, 69, 143, 161 Worthington, Cal, 63 Yeltsin, Boris, 26 Yom Kippur War, 144 Zabih, Sepehr, 53 Zorin, Valerian, 74 Zunes, Stephen, 47, 157