HOLLYWOOD AS AN INSTRUMENT of U.S.

FOREIGN POLICY AFTER 9/11

F. Orçun KEÇECİ*

Abstract

Hollywood as an instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy has been effectively used since the Cold
War Era. Hollywood has not only legitimized American policy but also facilitated military
strategy to take the public support. After the September 2001 Attacks (9/11), Hollywood
changed its shell to fight against ‘Axis of Evil’ and terrorism. Hollywood as a popular
geopolitics tool has begun to be used in order to understand American geopolitics perception
in the world since 2001. This paper consists of three parts. Firstly, general concept of U.S.
Foreign Policy after 9/11 will be given. Hollywood, sub-topic within critical geopolitics, will
be examined within the scope of popular geopolitics as a secondary topic. Lastly, two case
studies (Die Another Day and Argo) will be evaluated for in the context of legitimization of
Foreign Policy, terrorism as well as Axis of Evil.

Keywords: U.S. Foreign Policy, After 9/11, Axis of Evil, Popular Geopolitics, Hollywood

*Kadir Has University, Department of International Relations, PhD. Student

Introduction

The USA has emerged as a unique hegemonic super power after the fall of Berlin Wall

in 1989 and declaration of former Soviet republics’ independences by one by, and has tried to

reshape the world. The concept of the ‘Rogue States’ transformed into the ‘Axis of Evil’ has

begun to be used as the ‘new adversary perception’ instead of the red (communist) threat since

1991. In the first years of the twenty-first century, the September 11 Attacks (9/11) changed

both the USA and the world’s destinies. She started off counter terrorism and democracy

operations against Afghanistan and Iraq by using ‘hard-power’. The American foreign policy

has become much more militarized than in the past. ‘Popular geopolitics’ as a sub-topic within
the critical geopolitics facilitated the implementation of Bush’s policies by getting Hollywood’s

support.

Main argument of this essay is that Hollywood as an instrument of the U.S. Foreign

Policy after 9/11 has been used by Presidents for implementation of foreign policy and to taking

the public support by using two case studies (Die Another Day and Argo).

This paper consists of three parts. Firstly, general concept of U.S. Foreign Policy after

9/11 will be given. Hollywood, sub-topic within critical geopolitics, will be examined within

the scope of popular geopolitics as a secondary topic. Lastly, two case studies (Die Another

Day and Argo) will be evaluated for in the context of legitimization of Foreign Policy, terrorism

as well as Axis of Evil.

1. General Framework of U.S. Foreign Policy after 9/11

The 9/11 changed both American foreign policy and international politics. These attacks

finished the transition period in the USA domestically and internationally after the Cold War.

Former opponent perception of the U.S. government shifted from red threat (communism) to

‘war on terror’ and new enemies such as the ‘Axis of Evil’. The U.S. government, in particular

the President, dominated American policies and primarily focused on domestic politics to

promote ‘national consciousness and collective solidarity’. Furthermore, President George W.

Bush formed his policy on the legal ground with ‘rally around the flag’ effect in order to take

the public support for fighting against terrorism in international politics (Cox & Stokes 2012,

123).

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, and Rice were shocked due to 9/11

attacked and they were also aware the American vulnerabilities. Condoleezza Rice addressed

her speech in New York in 2002 and said “...after 9/11, there is no longer any doubt that today

America faces an existential threat to our security, a threat as great as any we faced during the

Civil War...” She continued her speech and explained the strategy related to national security.
This strategy rises on three pillars: defend the peace, preserve the peace and extend the peace

(Rice 2002). Thus, Bush’s policy was shaped by not only the hawkish Donald Rumsfeld and

Paul Wolfowitz but also national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the more cautious

U.S. State Department of Colin Powell (D.Brunn 2004).

In addition to that, the terror problem was used by the Bush administration in order to

mobilize Congress and the public opinion for his policy by shifting into unilateralism in

American foreign policy. This strategy served Bush’s purpose and Congress urgently approved

40 billion dollars grant-in-aid (Bozkurt 2010, 207-208). Moreover, Congress worked on to pass

new law draft struggle against terrorism and consolidate internal security. After this process,

the Patriot Act passed into law with senators’ votes in October 2001. One year later, the

Department of Homeland Security was established as a response to 9/11. The Bush

administration began to use hard power to fight against terrorism (Larivé 2014).

After these amendments, Bush declared his policy known as the ‘Bush Doctrine’ to the

public opinion and this doctrine targeted the Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan,

Iraq. On the one hand, the U.S. military forces had to intervene in these Axis of Evil countries

before supporting terrorism in the scope of ‘pre-emptive policy’. On the other hand, Bush tried

to promote democracy level of countries. As the ‘National Strategy Document’ declares to the

public, the main framework of the Bush doctrine was an aggressive foreign policy and to

legitimize the invasion of Iraq. Moreover, the strategy document which Bush got prepared

guarantees not only liberty of American people but also free trade and free markets in the world.

The United States will assist world economy and encourage economic freedom (White House

2002, v). According to Keir Lieber and Robert Lieber, the Doctrine is based on four pillars,

pre-emption, military primacy, a new multilateralism and promotion of democracy (Lieber

2002, 32). Multilateralism means that Washington can not only mobilize her allies but also fight
against common enemies, Afghanistan as terrorist state and Iraq as a member of the Axis of

Evil.

In the context of domestic politics, the approval ratings of George W. Bush peaked in

over 90% (The Gallup 2001). ‘National consciousness’ and ‘collective solidarity’ were the

main factors to support war on terror policy. As Bush was addressing his speech at the Congress

after 9/11, he challenged the world and said: “…Every nation, in every region, now has a

decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists…” (Voice of America

2009).

Finally, the ‘Rogue States’ concept coined by Ronald Reagan in 1985 and detailed by

the Clinton Era, was transformed into the ‘Axis of Evil’ by George W. Bush. The public support

was taken in the context of war on terror, and also media companies, notably CNN, and

Hollywood supported not only this policy but also President Bush besides, in terms of this

study, ‘popular geopolitics’ as a sub-topic within the critical geopolitics facilitated the

implementation of Bush’s policies by getting Hollywood’s support (Dodds, Hollywood and the

Popular Geopolitics of the War on Terror 2008).

2. Popular Geopolitics and Hollywood as a Foreign Policy Instrument

The critical geopolitics studies which has developed as different from the Cold War Era

has gained importance since 1991. Geopolitics studies have broadened and deepened as distinct

from its traditional meaning and interest owing to impact of globalization. Even though

geography and geographical framing have maintained their importance, they were incapable to

explain the post-Soviet developments in the world such as ethnic and cultural issues. Since

everything has changed from security perception to economic interdependence and domestic

issues in countries, critical geopolitics, which is effected by post-structuralism and post-

modernism, has focused on social construction of space, spatial identity, how statecraft
constructs ideas (Klinke 2015). It means that critical geopolitics also examines geopolitics as

social, cultural and political implementations by dividing into three sub-concepts (popular,

practical and political) instead of realist world politics.

As Gearóid Ó Tuathail and Simon Dalby mention, critical geopolitics has five crucial

points. Firstly, cultural phenomenon has become more important than is delineated by the

classical geopolitics. The boundary-drawing implementation as a second point has transformed

into expansive notion from ‘the outside’ of state and encompassed within ‘inside’ and ‘outside’

and ‘here’ and ‘there’ and ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’. Thirdly, even though critical geopolitics is

a part of geopolitics studies, classical and the objectivist perception approach with suspicion

critical geopolitics. Fourthly, critical geopolitics seeks for an answer how territories and

societies can be conceptualized and be managed as differ from classic statist approach. Final

argument is related to comprehensive perspective. Critical geopolitics embraces both the

conventional concept of geopolitics as a singularity determined by statecraft and expansive

notion as a plurality such as social and cultural structures. Popular geopolitics situated in critical

geopolitics deals with popular culture, mass media, everyday practices such as cinema, novels

and cartoons (Tuathail & Dalby 1998, 2-6). In this context, American cinema—Hollywood—

as an instrument of popular geopolitics has effectively formalized U.S. foreign policy for over

seven decades.

The White House has begun to keep close watch on the public by using the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since in the 1930s. Not only the FBI but also other formal

government structures such as the Department of Defence, the CIA after the Second World War

established media bureaus in order to monitor the public and loyalty to the state (Kundnani Fall

2014, 73).

The film industry has proved itself the government like a loyal friend who defends the

USA against her adversaries. American National Security interlaces with the cinema of the
USA by drawing general framework of national security cinema. Despite changing enemies

during the twentieth century, the mission of Hollywood did not alter. While the Nazis and

Japanese were posing threat in the World War II, the Russians and communism were at the top

of America’s agenda during the Cold War. At the present time, enemy on target evolved from

red threat to international terrorism and the Axis of Evil (Totman & Scudder 2009, 2).

The fundamental feature of Hollywood in the Cold War Era based on ‘national

narratives and containment of Soviet Union psychologically’. The movies shot in that Era were

ideologically fictionalized between good and evil, thus Hollywood as a propaganda instrument

served Washington to make the public believe in American policies. As Murray mentions,

Hollywood movies are classified under four different groups. ‘Anti-communist’ films are the

first category. Their aims promote the public’s perception against conspiracy which targets the

American life style. The Iron Curtain (1948), The Red Menace (1949), I Married a Communist

(1949), The Conspirator (1950), I Was Communist for the FBI (1951) can be given as examples.

‘Hot War’ films are categorized as a secondary group. These movies—Command Decision

(1948), Battleground (1949), The Sands of Iwo Jima (1950), The Halls of Montezuma (1950),

Steel Helmet (1951), Battle Zone (1952), One Minute to Zero (1952), Desert Fox (1951)—are

supported by military instrument in order to fight against the threats which are relevant to

national security. The third group are ‘science-fiction’ movies. These enemies were created as

imaginary rather than real rivalry. The films in this category are Them (1954), the Beginning of

the End (1957), It Came From Beneath the Sea (1955) and the Beast from Twenty Fathoms

(1953). Despite the fact that the movies such as She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), Viva Zapata

(1952), and Springfield Riffle (1950) shot in the Cold War, they did not follow the Cold War

film pattern (Şengül 2005, 31-37).

As a part of subject of this essay, the James Bond Movies during the Cold War Era

partially dominated both perception of the White House and policies of Hollywood. The plot
of the movies evaluated in different area in terms of development during the Cold War such as

struggling communism in East Asia and the threat of nuclear exchange. The American Cinema

facilitated the explanations of U.S Foreign Policy by the government and construe

Washington’s geopolitical duty in the world as a solid protector of American values, democracy

against the Soviet Union’s strategies and American superiority (Power & Crampton 2005, 195).

The James Bond series highlight the main characteristic features of the Cold War such as

Eastern European antagonism, the threat of nuclear proliferation and power struggle upon the

motion picture screen (Pembroke 2015, 183).

After the neo-conservatives had effected U.S. foreign policy, mass media as a

propaganda tool consolidated its role within the White House’s policies. The policy of war on

terror combined aggressive military strategy as a hard power with film industry. Pentagon also

coordinated administration of Hollywood and media (Boggs Summer 2006, 108, 114-115)

In November 2001 in Beverly Hills, Bush’s adviser Karl Rove and Jack Valenti, who is

the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, arranged a meeting with

Hollywood executives, the representatives of major studios such as MGM, HBO and Showtime

to discuss their responses to war on terror (King 2001). Furthermore, Hollywood took this

opportunity to create a new context which includes the triumph of good over evil (us vs. others).

Enemy perception of Hollywood dramatically changed from containment of Soviet Union to

global terrorism and Muslims. Although, Arabs fictionalised as militant, rude and terrorist in

many times, Americans as oppressed and innocent people (Shabi 2015). Thus, post-9/11 cinema

industry ensured its position within critical geopolitics concept.

The Attacks of September 11 challenged American’s hegemonic superiority aftermath

of Soviet Union. Washington turned the tables on these attacks by using Hollywood and taking

the public support. It means that Hollywood constructed its arguments upon marginalization of
Arabs, Muslims as well as other minority groups, so Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is

cited as an example for facilitating the perception of terrorist attacks (Pembroke 2015, 190).

Thus, Hollywood—like the daily life in the USA—dramatically shifted its focal point

due to the Attacks of September 11, too. Attacks were interpreted as towards the unity of

American identities and culture. The Pentagon was able to manage the crisis in parallel with

the media by showing terror images on the screen in order to create national consciousness.

These interpretations were to take the public support by uniting them under one flag. Muslims,

Arabs as well as minorities, who pose a threat American unity and national security, were

marginalized (Jeff Birkenstein 2010, 11).

In this context, the last part of this essay will examine Hollywood as a foreign policy

instrument trough two case studies.

3. Two Case Studies: Die Another Day and Argo

i. James Bond Series: Die Another Day

Die Another Day (2002) which is a James Bond movie “begins in the de-militarized

zone between North and South Korea, moves onto Iceland via Hong Kong, Cuba and London

in order to prevent a possible nuclear war which can be catastrophic results and Bond back in

London where it all started. He is assigned to rendezvous with a North Korean army officer,

Colonel Moon, in his investigation of a North Korean terrorist, Zhao. The mission is betrayed

and Bond is captured and subjected to vicious North Korean torture…” (Scudder 2009, 126).

These fictions are parallel with deteriorated relations between the USA and North

Korea. Not only the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (MWDs) symbolizes

stereotype of the Axis of Evil, but also the torture scenes of the movie reflect the current human

rights abuses in North Korea (Kunz 2015, 11). Another similarity between the movie and Rogue
States is associated with weapons of massive destruction in Iraq, thus investigation gathering

activities prove importance of classical geopolitics (Dodds 2006, 125).

This film is essential in terms of four matters: Firstly, Die Another Day is the first movie

shot after the doctrine of Axis of Evil and it fictionalized upon ‘real enemy’. The movie has the

feature of ‘patriotic cinema’ which is firstly shot after 9/11 as a secondary matter. Thirdly,

unlike the other James Bond series, this film reaches ‘specific’ audience. Finally, North Korea

as a Rogue State poses a crucial security threat and the film turns into screen play for

counterbalancing (Kunz 2015, 3).

The film represents a significant distinction between Anglo-Saxon and American

intelligence relations. Bond meets NSA agent Jinx Johnson and she treated him in a gene clinic

in Cuba. This event shows the harmonisation of Anglo-American intelligence, however, unlike

the Cold War Era, American superiority more highlighted than British in terms of intelligence

activity on the fılm (Kunz 2015, 11).

ii. Argo

“…The film begins with a cartoon depiction of Iran’s diplomatic history from the Suez

Crisis, up until the November 4th storming of the U.S Embassy, which the audience are thrown

into in media res. 50 embassy staff are taken hostage by Iranians angry at President Carter’s

giving asylum to the Shah of Iran, but 6 escape to the home of the Canadian Ambassador Ken

Taylor. The U.S State department seek options for their safe removal from Iran, bringing in

Tony Mendez to help. He proposes the creation of a film that would provide cover for

operatives, seen to be scouting for filming locations in Iran... Mendez and Jack O’Donnell seek

the help of John Chambers, a Hollywood make-up artist, who puts them in touch with a film

producer, Lester Segel. They set up a fake film production company and publicize their ‘fake film’

as a cover story. The escapees are still inside the ambassador’s house. Using re-assembled
photographs, the Iranians realise some personnel escaped the embassy... The remaining

hostages were freed on January 20, 1981. The film ends with President Carter’s speech about

the hostage crisis…” (Pembroke 2015, 222-223).

This case is explained upon the Rogue State as a Third World enemy by paying attention

to different geography. As National Security Strategy was approved in 1995, American Foreign

Policy encompassed Iran due to shifting the behaviour of Tehran such as supporter of terrorism,

breaking down of the peace keeping and undermining of friendly relations. One year later, in

1996, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) passed from Congress for imposing economic

restrictions on firms which carries on business with Iran and Libya. Its aim is to prevent their

desires of developing weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism (Sanz 2014, 7).

George W. Bush transformed Rogue State concept into the Axis of Evil by deepening and

broadening after coming to office. Actually, the Axis of Evil indirectly conforms with

Huntington’s the Clash of Civilizations (Sanz 2014, 11). It means that Western geopolitical

concept after 9/11 has attached importance to contradictions between the West and the Muslims.

That’s the why the Iranian case is one of the most important geopolitical cases after the Cold

War.

Argo is symbolised as an example of liberal isolationism by guiding Hollywood. It is

used as a public relations (PR) to take support of American citizens for upcoming confrontation

with Iran (Keating 2013). The film proves the close relations with the CIA. Although Argo

looks as if it is an action movie, the Pentagon-funded film is very well embedded in the

background. Antonio Mendez, ex-CIA operative, has written three books of his career in the

CIA and Argo as the true story is based on his third book “The Master of Disguise” how rescued

six American diplomatic hostages in Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The casts are

shown as ordinary people, however important point is that these people are captured by Iranian
rebellious students. On the other hand, the rebellious as solid religious are portrayed. (Djavadov

2012). These scenes illustrate main differences between Americans and Iranians.

There are some orientalist scenes on the film. For instance, some Persian dialogues are

not translated into English, in particular during the passport control before boarding the flight.

When American embassy officer speaks Farsi with the Revolutionary Guards at the checkpoint,

the guards let them pass to flight (Kundnani Fall 2014, 79). It means that Iranian cannot speak

English and they are isolated from the world. The message on the film is that innocent hostages

are taken prison by terrorist Iranians. The last scene of the film gives another notable message

related to secular culture. After taking off, the stewardess announced “we have left Iranian

airspace and you are now free to drink alcohol”. Wine as a ‘cultural weapon’ is symbolized to

struggle Iran’s solid rules which are far away freedoms (Djavadov 2012).

Finally, First Lady Michelle Obama awarded the Oscar to Argo for the best movie. This

is not only prize but also the film industry how closes to the White House. According to

Lévesque, Hollywood and Washington indirectly sent their messages out at the right time for

the on-going nuclear talks with Iran (Lévesque 2013).

Conclusion

The September 11 Attacks totally shifted not only the American foreign policy but also

international politics. Many legislations, amendments and doctrines after 9/11 tried to shape the

Middle East. In addition to these policies, the White House ensured its Foreign Policy with new

strategies and doctrines such as war on terror and Axis of Evil. The USA has consolidated its

position in the Middle East with the Greater Middle East Project. In this context, popular

geopolitics legitimized these policies and assisted American superiority.

As mentioned above, unlike classical geopolitics, Hollywood has been coherently

shaped with U.S. Foreign Policy since the fall of Berlin Wall in terms of critical geopolitics. In
particular, the two case studies, Die Another Day and Argo, are not only action movies but also

secret geopolitical messages for audience. They symbolize a peaceful Anglo-American

initiative upon Hollywood. Lastly, these cases as continuity of ‘discursive hegemony’ are

presented to the world by marginalization of American’s enemy.

***

Bibliography

Boggs, Carl. “Pentagon Strategy, Hollywood, and Technowar.” New Politics, Summer 2006:
108-121.
Bozkurt, Enver. Birleşmiş Milletler Sisteminde Kuvvet Kullanımı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın
Dağıtım, 2010.
D.Brunn, Stanley. 11 September and Its Aftermath: the Geopolitics of Terror. London: Frank
Cass Publishers, 2004.
Dalby, Gearóid Ó Tuathail and Simon. Rethinking Geopolitics. New York: Routledge: Taylor
& Francis, 1998.
Djavadov, Zainab Cheema and Maksud. “Argo: Hollywood as extension of CIA propaganda.”
Crescent International: Newsmagazine of the Islamic Movement. November 2012.
http://www.crescent-online.net/2012/11/argo-hollywood-as-extension-of-cia-
propaganda-zainab-cheema-and-maksud-djavadov-3400-articles.html (accessed
December 11, 2015).
Dodds, Klaus. “Popular Geopolitics and Audience Dispositions: James Bond and the Internet
Movie Database (IMDB).” Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers), Jun 2006: 116-130.
—. “Hollywood and the Popular Geopolitics of the War on Terror.” Third World Quarterly,
24 December 2008: 1621-1637.
House, The White. “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” State.gov.
17 September 2002. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf
(accessed December 09, 2015).
Jeff Birkenstein, Anna Froula and Karen Randell. Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular Culture
and. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, 2010.
Keating, Joshua E. “Does Hollywood Have a Foreign Policy?” Foreign Policy. 22 February
2013. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/22/does-hollywood-have-a-foreign-policy/
(accessed December 11, 2015).
King, John. “White House sees Hollywood role in war on terrorism.” CNN. 8 November
2001. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/08/rec.bush.hollywood/index.html (accessed
November 11, 2015).
Klinke, Ian. Geopolitics: critical vs. classical. 05 January 2015.
http://www.exploringgeopolitics.org/publication_klinke_ian_five_minutes_for_critical
_geopolitics_a_slightly_provocative_introduction/ (accessed December 01, 2015).
Kundnani, Deepa Kumar and Arun. “Imagining National Security: The CIA, Hollywood, and
the War on Terror.” Democratic Communiqué, Fall 2014: 72-83.
Kunz, Raphael. “Preparing for war, gaming/screening war, but no war: U.S. post-Cold War.”
Critical Contemporary Culture-CCC. 16 May 2015.
http://www.criticalcontemporaryculture.org/article-raphael-kunz-preparing-for-war-
gamingscreening-war-but-no-war-u-s-post-cold-war-strategy-towards-north-korea/
(accessed December 11, 2015).
Larivé, Maxime H.A. “The Making of American Foreign Policy in the Post-9/11 World.”
Foreing Policy Blogs. Edited by Foreign Policy. 6 May 2014.
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/05/06/the-making-of-american-foreign-policy-in-
the-post-911-world/ (accessed November 11, 2015).
Lévesque, Julie. “Screen Propaganda, Hollywood and the CIA.” Global Research . 01 March
2013. http://www.globalresearch.ca/screen-propaganda-hollywood-and-the-
cia/5324589 (accessed December 11, 2015).
Lieber, Keir A. and Robert J. Lieber. The Bush National Security Strategy. December 2002.
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=3468 (accessed December 09, 2015).
Pembroke, Jacob. Constructing American Identity and the Terrorist ‘Other’. A dissertation of
a Degree in BA International Relation and Political Science, Birmingham: The New
Birmingham Review: Dissertation Special Edition 2015, 2015, 177-225.
Poer, Marcus and Crampton, Andrew. “Reel Geopolitics: Cinematographing Political Space.”
Geopolitics 10, no. 2 (2005): 193-203.
Rice, Condoleezza. A Balance of Power that Favors Freedom. 1 October 2002.
http://www.womenspeecharchive.org/women/profile/speech/index.cfm?ProfileID=109
&SpeechID=469 (accessed December 02, 2015).
Sanz, Marina Díaz. ““Rogue states in the interstate system: the case of Iran”.” 23rd World
Congress of Political Science. Montréal, Québec, 2014. 1-21.
Scudder, Sally-Ann Totman and Garry. How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy. New York,:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Shabi, Rachel. “How Hollywood helped sanitise the 'war on terror'.” ALJAZEERA. 05 Jully
2015. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/07/hollywood-helped-sanitise-
war-terror-top-gun-150705071807698.html (accessed December 10, 2015).
Stokes, Michael Cox&Doug. US Foreign Policy. Second Edition. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
Şengül, Ali Fuat. “Cineme and Representationin Intrnational Relations: Hollywood Cinema
and the Cold War.” A Thesis of Master of Art, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, 2005.
The Gallup. “Presidential Approval Ratings -George W. Bush.” Gallup. 21-22 September
2001. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-
bush.aspx (accessed November 11, 2015).
Voice of America. Voice of America. 27 October 2009. http://www.voanews.com/content/a-
13-a-2001-09-21-14-bush-66411197/549664.html (accessed November 11, 2015).