1

BETWEEN THE “ISNESS” OF INTERESTS AND THE “OUGHTNESS” OF VALUES

President Obama’s Foreign Policy with Respect to Human Rights

* Draft version. Please do not cite or circulate *

Gergana Tzvetkova PhD student, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa Email: g.tzvetkova@sssup.it

The objective of this paper is to investigate the place of the concept of human rights in the foreign policy of the

United States of America (USA) during the two terms of President Barack Obama. We believe such an

examination is necessary in view of the existing and emerging global challenges that increasingly include and

refer to human rights. This paper stems from my PhD research that compares how the EU and the US integrate

human rights in their counter-piracy policies. Following the constructivist approach to international relations

and foreign policy analysis, the contribution seeks to question whether and how human rights were present in

the formulation and implementation of US foreign policy during the specified time period. I argue that human

rights were present in the rhetoric of the Obama administration vis a vis foreign policy as specific values but the

domestic and international political realities presented few examples of actual, immediate promotion of human

rights and prevention of their violations. I propose that the reason might be found in the inherent difficulty to

connect human rights with national interests; instead they continue to flourish mostly in the abstract area of

values. Consequently, the Obama administration has done a lot to draw the outlines of the “Oughtness” but a

little of it was translated into “Isness.” The method used in the course of the research is discourse analysis of

official documents and speeches that were central to Obama’s presidency.

INTRODUCTION The presidential elections in the United States of America (USA)1 might be a whole year ahead but

the tension is already building up – doe the myriad of republican candidates promise a revival of the

Good Old Party or will the country make another historical step by choosing a woman as a president?

Simultaneously, discussions and evaluations of Barack Obama’s presidency abound, which comes as

no surprise since his presidency has been anything but uneventful. Confronted by the opponents of

the healthcare reform and the surveillance scandals at home and the rise of ISIS, Russian annexation

of Crimea and deteriorated relations with Israel, the Obama administration faced many difficult

choices.

Our objective here is to take a look at a small section of the overall picture of Obama’s

presidency, namely the place of the concept of human rights in the foreign policy of his

1 In this paper, USA (United States of America), US (United States) and America will be used interchangeably.

2

administration. We believe such an examination is necessary in view of the existing and emerging

global challenges that increasingly include and refer to human rights. Thus, this work positions itself

into the body of literature that investigates the power and influence of values, ideas and norms on

the international behavior of political bodies, their foreign policies and the image and roles they

display before the others. It is also inspired by the author’s interest in the role of the US in today’s

world and the country’s relations with the European Union (EU). This paper stems from a currently

conducted PhD research that compares how the EU and the US integrated human rights in their

counter-piracy policies.

Therefore, the research question asked here is: How are human rights present in the

formulation of US foreign policy during the two presidential terms of Barack Obama? In order to

answer this question, we perform discourse analysis of 18 speeches made by President Obama

through the years that deal exclusively with US foreign policy. In doing so, we look at two things.

First, how human rights are conceptualized – which other concepts they are linked to (democracy,

peace, etc.); how do they fit in the narrative of American national security, American interests and

values. Second, we examine the contextualization of human rights, namely how President Obama

incorporated them in the formulation of foreign policy goals and America’s image in the world. We

argue that human rights did take part in the formulation of American foreign policy goals during the

terms of President Obama. Thus, they could be an example of the influence of ideational structures’

on interest and identity formation. However, their promotion and spread continue to be deeply

embedded in national security. The analyzed texts point to an understanding about human rights as

universal aspirations and not an American/Western export. The examines discourse draws a picture

of a world in which sooner or later all peoples will strive and fight for human rights and the US should

be there to lead by example, vocalize their demands and step in if necessary.

The paper has the following structure. First, it outlines the adopted research approach,

followed by a clarification of the used research methods. The second part presents the findings of

the research, while the concluding section offers a suggestion about the developments that we

should follow closely in the last year of Obama’s mandate.

ADOPTED RESEARCH APPROACH2

The ontological and epistemological principles that guide a researcher influence the methodology

and the methods chosen by her, since they form the “philosophical basis of a research project.”3 The

2 This chapter and the chapter on research methods include parts of the draft of PhD dissertation with provisional title: THE

QUESTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FOREIGN POLICY – A Constructivist Analysis of Counter-Piracy Efforts of the European Union and the United States of America”. 3 Hesse-Biber and Sharlene Nagy. The Practice of Qualitative Research. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2011. p.4.

3

author positions the perspective to the study of international relations employed here as closely

identified with the constructivist approach to IR. Emanuel Adler identifies four types of

constructivism – modernist, modernist linguistic, radical and critical – which have their differences

but “converge on an ontology that depicts the social world as intersubjectively and collectively

meaningful structures and processes.”4 The cornerstones of that ontology are the variety of

intersubjective perceptions that add up to the world around us; the existence of social facts as such

only due to human agreement; the constant reference on the meanings and knowledge we

individually have to the collective ones expressed through norms and discourse.5 In this sense,

human rights are discussed here only because the concept has been socially constructed in the

course of debates about the existence and nature of rights, because they have been contested and

even ridiculed and because in order to be defined more precisely they have been put against their

counterparts – brutal violations of human dignity like slavery, torture, genocide, but also alongside

other notions like democracy and liberty.

Moving to epistemology, Adler states that except for the radical strand, the constructivists

agree that their interest in how things come to be (instead of how things are) leads to open-ended

“contingent generalizations” that add up to the richness and unexpectedness of the social world.6

More broadly speaking, the constructivist epistemological position defends a multiplicity of

constructed meanings, none of which is the only true one; this position informs the interpretivist

theoretical perspective which allows for differing interpretations of reality and its constitutive

elements.7 At the basis of this research lies the perception that the world in which individual and

collective actors exist, develop and act is a socially constructed one. The same is valid for the

knowledge we acquire during our existence and the notions we exploit when we have to make

decisions, embrace certain courses of action, while discarding others. When doing that, we are

driven by our material interests but also by ideational factors like values and norms. The scope,

nature and source of both material and ideational drivers are often determined through reference,

communication and comparison with others. This assumption could be easily applied also to the

world of states, which define their interests and values in opposition to those of archenemies or in

harmony with those of friends. Thus, we assume that the influence of values, norms, identities,

interests and human rights is better studied and understood if looked at from a constructivist-

interpretivist epistemological position.

4 Adler, Emanuel. “Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions and Debates.” In Handbook of

International Relations. Edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons 112-145. Sage Publications, 2002. P. 121. 5 Ibidem. P. 121-122.

6 Ibidem. p. 122.

7 Grey, David.E. Doing Research in the Real World. 2

nd edition. Sage Publications, 2009. p.21.

4

The how formulation of the research question presupposes mostly a descriptive endeavor.

Indeed, our main objective is to describe the way in which a concept is presented in a collection of

texts and could influence direct action. Again, as in social sciences, the boundaries between

paradigms and philosophical stances of all kinds are often blurred, it is expected that the research

might at times assume also an explanatory turn. The attempt to find a balance between the different

purposes of a study might be sought in the notion of interpretivist study – closely linked to inductive

efforts and qualitative techniques of data collection.8 In this sense, an interpretivist study could be

seen as combining both descriptive and explanatory tenets. First, any interpretation requires the

initial gathering and presentation of information (hence, description). At the same time, it also

possibly leads to new meanings and understandings that could serve as an explanation to the issue

with which the researcher is preoccupied.

The present work rests on two premises largely discussed within the constructivist approach

to international relations. The first one concerns the importance of ideational factors like ideas and

values for the definition of state interests and later on, foreign policy as the specific actions taken to

realize these interests. The second is the significance of analyzing language, and more specifically

discourse, to understand and interpret actions, policies and behavior on the part of international

actors.

The first important reminder here is that material factors cannot and should not be ignored

as motivations for state behavior and formulation of state interests, but the same goes also for

“normative and ideational structures.”9 Not only state interests are not stable, they are also shaped

by existing norms, which precede them and not the other way around.10 The interests of actors

should not be taken for granted because they depend on fluid identities, changing historical

circumstances and elusive meanings. The novelty brought by constructivists in the study of interests

is their dependence on social factors, reflected in the argument that “new foreign policy ideas are

shaped by preexisting dominant ideas and their relationship to experienced events.”11 Checkel

defines the ponderings of foreign policy analyst that decided to adopt a constructivism-oriented

approach like this: the analysts would strive to uncover the roots of the interests (for example, norms

or participation in discourses) rather than accept them as a given in his analysis.12 Furthermore, this

8 Ibidem. p. 37

9 Reus-Smit, Christian. “Constructivism.” In Theories of International Relations. 3

rd edition. Edited by Burchill et al. 188-213.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. P. 198. 10

Boekle, Henning, Volker Rittberger and Wolfgang Wagner. “Norms and Foreign Policy: Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory”. p.8. Available at: https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/47193/pdf/tap34a.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed March 2015). 11

Legro in Hurd, Ian. “Constructivism.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Christian Reus-Smith and Duncan Snidal. 298-317. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 303. 12

Checkel, Jeffrey. T. “Constructivism and Foreign Policy.” In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne. 71-83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 74.

5

analyst looks at the actors as “communicatively rational agents” that do not assess costs and benefits

in isolation but debate, counter-argue and attempt to convince the others, in the process of which

their interests are crystallized.13 The influence of material considerations should not be discontinued,

but equal attention should be paid to values, as vital components of the normative and ideational

structures – although non-material, “values also have structural characteristics.”14

The shaping of interests and the formulation and implementation of foreign policy do not

happen by chance. One of the best formulations of this claim has been provided by Thomas Risse –

“ideas do not float freely”15 – but are caught, appropriated and passed forward by agents who share

them. The actors that populate the international arena want to make their interests known to the

others, but the same can be claimed with respect to values. An important source of power in a

constructivist account of international relations is the ability to “determine the shared meanings that

constitute the identities, interests and practices of states.”16 This might be made easier by reference

to specific values upheld by the actor or ideas that it sees as dominating. Therefore, special attention

is paid to the communicative processes through which international actors ponder on their priorities,

options and moral codes.17 They can do that directly – by clearly declaring that a given action is

grounded in an existing value. Alternatively, when pursuing their interests, actors could undertake a

series of actions that demonstrate consistent support for a value/norm/practice. They can also use

codified norms to explain and justify their actions or inactions.

The constructivist thematic area where the importance of discourse is most clearly visible

includes the so-called epistemic communities.18 It has been hypothesized that their formation and

activities rest on two pillars: their shared “set of normative and principled beliefs” and their ability to

interact and influence policy.19 The success of their efforts to push for a particular policy direction

depends on their independence from official authorities, the high level of their expertise, the number

of their channels for communication and their persuasion abilities. What Checkel describes as

13

Ibidem. 14

Reus-Smit, Christian. “Constructivism.” In Theories of International Relations. 3rd

edition. Edited by Burchill et al. 188-213. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. p. 197. 15

Risse-Kappen, Thomas. “Ideas do not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 185-214. www.jstor.org (accessed March 2015). 16

Adler, Emanuel. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3 (1997): 319-363. p. 336. 17

Adler, Emanuel. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3 (1997): 319-363. Reus-Smit, Christian. “Human rights and the social construction of sovereignty.” Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 519–538. Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is what states make of it.” International Organization, Vol. 46 (1992). 18

Adler, Emanuel and Peter M. Haas. “Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Winter, 1992), pp. 367-390. www.jstor.org (accessed March 2015); Risse-Kappen, Thomas. “Ideas do not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 185-214. www.jstor.org (accessed March 2015). P. 187. 19

Boekle, Henning, Volker Rittberger and Wolfgang Wagner. “Norms and Foreign Policy: Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory”. p.8. Available at: https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/47193/pdf/tap34a.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed March 2015).

6

characteristic of the European strain of constructivism is the focus it places on language. Language is

viewed as an element of “structures of meaning – discourses – that make possible certain foreign

policy actions.”20 This is why a foreign policy analyst might only benefit from studying not only

actions but also the speech acts that tried to communicate, present and defend these acts, for they

convey an actor’s motivations and insecurities before the adoption of a certain decision. The analysis

of texts that constitute parts of the discourse surrounding a particular foreign policy issue is essential

because it adds up to the knowledge underlying this issue. This is visible in the intertextual links

within and between discourses when an important matter is at stake – texts refer and are in turn

mentioned in other texts.21 According to Carlsnaes, the discursive approach is representative of the

holist-interpretive perspective; of special interest to us here is its tendency to view language as the

constitutive element of discourses that are the foundation upon which policies and interests are

constructed.22 We tend to share the view that any analysis could not only benefit from bringing

together more than one perspectives on foreign policy, but also that it actually necessitates such

collaboration.

Following Adler’s discussion of Verstehen, here we view Human Rights as a knowledge

structure that is “continually constituted and reproduced by members of a community and their

behavior.”23 Human rights are intermittently enriched or diminished because of the meaning that

actors decide to ascribe to them. A large part of this meaning is conveyed through the discourses in

which actors take part and refer to the specific knowledge structure. The groups of actors that

continuously tend to communicate and reflect on human rights then constitute the epistemic

community that “drives” the development of the concept over time. It is also important to note that

intersubjective meanings are not merely the sum of the understandings of single individuals; they are

the “collective knowledge” generated by those who share the meaning and abide by it in their

actions.24 Thus actors, individual but also states, institutions, etc. contribute to this collective through

communication of their ideas and persuasion, which once again points out the importance of

discourse.

USED METHODS AND LIMITS OF THE RESEARCH

20

Checkel, Jeffrey. T. “Constructivism and Foreign Policy.” In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne. 71-83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p.77 21

Hansen, Lene. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge, 2006. p.7. 22

Larsen and Weaver in Carlsnaes, Walter. “Foreign Policy.” In Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons 331-350. Sage Publications, 2002. P. 340. 23

Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground.” p. 326. See supra note 16. 24

Ibidem. p. 327

7

Three main types of methodology – itself defined as an “account of social reality or some component

of it” – have been described, namely post-positivist, interpretative and critical.25 Here, we have

chosen to adopt the second methodological position, grounded in the notion of the constant

construction of the social reality.26 Correspondingly, the employment of theoretical suppositions

here comes closer to induction rather than deduction. The main objective of an inductive process is

the establishment of “patterns, consistencies and meanings” and not the confirmation or falsification

of theories.27 As an attempt at mixed-method research (MMR), the two methods used here are

computer-assisted content analysis (CA) and discourse analysis (DA) – the first usually described as a

quantitative and the second as a qualitative method. It has been suggested that MMR contributes to

the depth of the research, because quantitative methods help draw the general picture, while

qualitative methods produce more detailed results.28 Our intention to rely on both methods to

describe the influence of human rights on foreign policy formulation is driven by the observation that

MMR allows for offsetting of the weaknesses of individual methods. Qualitative research provides

the context which quantitative research could not do, while quantitative research contributes to the

elimination of bias, created in the course of a researcher’s interpretative qualitative endeavor.29

Although DA and CCA are both “text-focused methods”, the difference between them has

been explained through the line drawn between “interpretivism and approaches that put more

emphasis on causal explanations.”30 However, that does not mean that their combination is

impossible because the differences in epistemological and methodological sense are not always

sharply separated. Many researchers have suggested doing CA “within a discourse analysis

approach” – by interpreting texts within “the social contexts within which they were produced”.31

The indisputable contribution of CCA is that it systematizes the research, singles out the more

valuable texts and pinpoints patterns and frequencies of the use of words and phrases.32 DA then

allows for a fuller interpretation of the selected parts of the text, bringing forward a crucial socio-

historical perspective to the interpretation.33 This research is what has been described as a

supervised research, as we have a priori selected the words we will look for in a collection of texts.34

25

Hesse-Biber and Sharlene Nagy, The Practice of Qualitative Research, p.5. See supra note 3. 26

Ibidem. 27

Grey, David.E. Doing Research in the Real World, p.18. See supra note 7. 28

“The Nature of Mixed Method Research.” Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/35003_Chapter1.pdf, p. 8. (Accessed July 2015) 29

Ibidem. 30

Bennett, Andrew. “Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis and Computer Assisted Content Analysis.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies, June 2015 vol. 43 no. 3 984-997. www.jstor.org (accessed July 2015), p. 986 31

Ibidem, p. 991. 32

Ibidem. 33

Ibidem. 34

Ibidem, p. 995

8

Further, the differences between DA and CА were summarized as follows: the first one is a

methodology in itself that is “qualitative, interpretative, and constructionist”, while the second is a

mode of contextual analysis that is objective, systematic, and quantitative.”35 But they could be

complementary as the “more structured and formal forms of discourse analysis are compatible with

the more interpretative forms of content analysis”.36 Neuendorf shares this opinion: “their findings

can fit together quite nicely, providing a good example of triangulation of methods,37 which she

defines as “approaching a research question from multiple methodological stances.38

In line with the philosophical stance of this research and the adopted approach to the study

of international relations, we examine how human rights are present a number of selected

documents – are human rights connected to a material structure like military power/use of force and

economic prosperity or are they part of ideational structures like spread of American values and

establishment of an international order. This division is inspired by the definition of the core US

interests by the Obama presidency in the two National Security Strategies published during the two

terms of President Obama – the first in 201039 and the second in the beginning of 2015.40 The

international order here is presented as an ideational structure because of the way it is envisioned in

the 2015 strategy: “…rules, norms, and institutions that are the foundation for peace, security,

prosperity, and the protection of human rights in the 21st century.”

We selected 18 speeches made by president Obama during his first election campaign (two

speeches) and during his two presidential terms (16 speeches). The speeches all concern the

formulation and implementation of the US foreign policy. All of them were made before educational

institutions all over the world – research institutes, think-tanks, universities or military academies,

which was our intention and a criterion for speech selection. The full list of the speeches is attached

as an Appendix to the present paper.

First, quantitative CA is performed on the selected texts to establish the overall presence

there of the concept of human rights. The relevant sections were identified by searching the

following words, directly connected to human rights or indirectly so for the purpose of this study: 1)

(human) rights; 2) dignity; 3) justice; 4) peace; 5) freedom. These concepts were not chosen randomly

– they are nouns all present in the very first sentence of the most important human rights document,

35

Hardy, Harley and Phillips, “Discourse Analysis and Content Analysis: Two Solitudes? Available at www.braumoeller.info/.../2012/12/Discourse-Content-Analysis.pdf p. 19-20. (Accessed April 2015). 36

Ibidem, p. 22. 37

Neuendorf, Kimberly A., “Content Analysis – A Contrast and Complement to Discourse Analysis.” Available at www.braumoeller.info/.../2012/12/Discourse-Content-Analysis.pdf,p. 33. (Accessed July 2015). 38

Ibidem, p. 34. 39

The White House. National Security Strategy May 2010. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf (Accessed August 2015) 40

The White House. National Security Strategy February 2015. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf (Accessed August 2015)

9

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “(w)hereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the

equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice

and peace in the world.”41 After some consideration, we decided to add to the list another word and

a phrase because we believe that these additions could be beneficial to the performed content and

discourse analysis. The first of them is democracy, which today is often paired with human rights.

While noting the absence of democracy from the UDHR, we should keep in mind the particular

historical context in which it was drafted. The Cold War of ideologies was just beginning and it was

difficult to favor one of those ideologies in a document the other one was supposed to embrace. The

other phrase we decided to include is international law, because human rights talk today happens

mostly in the framework of IHRL. In most of the cases human rights are defined, described and

defended by indirect or direct references to binding and non-binding international documents.

The first part of the quantitative textual analysis consisted in identifying the frequency of the

key words/phrases identified above by using the software QDA Miner 4 Lite. The search for texts

referring to human rights included a search for both the word combination as a whole and the word

rights separately since it was noted that it could appear in combinations with words different than

human like universal, civil, etc. All these textual segments were placed under the coding human

rights. Segments where the key words were found were coded respectively. In line with our interest

in foreign policy formulation, statements like “More people have gone to the ballot box, but too

many governments still fail to protect the rights of their people”42 were not coded under “human

rights.” The only reason is that they do not convey a concrete US foreign policy goal in contrast to

statements that openly declare how the US will work towards promotion and protection of human

rights in the world. Using linguistic terms, the first type of references could be described as

declarative or informative, while the second type falls within the category of imperative sentences.

From the analysis were also excluded those cases when “rights” is used as a description of a person,

etc., for example “civil rights leader” or “civil rights movement.”43

Content analysis was then followed by DA, to solidify the interpretative nature of this work

and to help get deeper understanding about the presence of the concept of human rights in the

studied discourse. Moreover, it tells us how human rights are conceptualized in the text, by showing

us the words that accompany them, and how the concept is contextualized and utilized in Obama’s

contribution to the discourse on US foreign policy. This gives us the opportunity to try tracing the

meaning-creation process by examining how the words/word combinations were used to convey the

41

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (Accessed August 2015). 42

Remarks By The President At The New Economic School Graduation, 2009. For the links to the speeches hereby analyzed, see Appendix 1. 43

Remarks by President Obama at the University of Cape Town, 2013.

10

intentions of the text-producer. The discourse analysis also aimed to interpret the structure within

which the concepts related to human rights were used as material or ideational. By material

structure we mean a context of military capabilities, use of force, economic prosperity. Ideational

structures on the other hand are those associated with ideas, values, principles, beliefs.

Before proceeding to research findings a word on the research limits is necessary. On one

hand we realize that more speeches are needed to draw a comprehensive picture of the way

Obama’s administration employed and applied the concept of human rights in American foreign

policy. On the other, we believe that the present work is a good starting point for doing that, since

this selection includes some of the president’s most cited speeches like the Woodrow Wilson Center

speech or the “New Beginning” Speech in Cairo. Thus, we see the research on the place of human

rights in the past presidential administrations as an ongoing endeavor. Parts of the present paper are

also incorporated in a much longer work, namely the author’s PhD dissertation.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

After the performed textual analysis – in terms of both content and discourse – we came to the

following findings:

1) A reference to human rights as part of a foreign policy objective was done 40 times in 12 of

the speeches, most of which in the 2014 Brisbane University Speech (8 times) followed by

the 2009 Cairo “New Beginning” Speech (7 times). It is noteworthy that human rights were

not mentioned explicitly in the two speeches made during Obama’s first election campaign,

where his foreign policy goals were laid out;

2) Of all the other concepts associated with human rights, “peace” was the most mentioned as

a foreign policy goal. In fact from all key words it was referred to the most – 48 times in 17

speeches. It is followed by freedom mentioned 47 times in 14 speeches and dignity, talked

about 31 times in 14 speeches. Democracy is referred to 31 times in 13 speeches; justice 19

times in 13 speeches and international law 15 times in 6 speeches. A detailed table and

frequency distribution chart are attached as appendices to this paper;

3) In the segments coded with more than one of key word, human rights most often appear

along the notion of freedom (14 times), followed by democracy (11 times), dignity (9 times),

justice (8 times), peace (5 times) and international law (4 times). They were mentioned by

themselves alone 11 times;

4) Thus, human rights have been largely conceptualized in reference to freedom and

democracy. However, we should also note the prominence of the notion of dignity. Stress is

also put on freedom from fear – in general, but also fear from the United States. Freedom

11

and dignity thus emerge as a supra-framework that needs to be in place to pave the way for

human rights. However, freedom and dignity are not material goods that could be imposed

or imported. They should be craved from the inside and internalized – and this is a major

requirement for any intervention or aid on the part of the US.

5) Human rights are mentioned as a building block of both material and ideational structures.

President Obama seems to try and converge the material and the ideational when declaring

America’s goals and intentions with respect to human rights. However, the spread of

American (or universal) values remains only a part, albeit a significant one, of American

national security strategy.

6) The analyzed speeches draw an image of Obama’s America as the “vocal and supportive

stander-by.” On numerous occasions the president assured that the US will speak for all

those who consciously seek dignity, freedom and opportunity but have no voice of their own.

However, the discourse points to a more cautious America when it comes to direct action – it

is very important that the values are internalized before any American intervention.

The Conceptualization of Human Rights

Human rights are mentioned in speeches made by Obama all over the world, including those in

academic institutions in the US. The 2012 speech at the Air Force Academy offers one of the clearest

expressions of human rights as a specific foreign policy goal pursued by the US: “…no other nation

has made the advancement of human rights and dignity so central to its foreign policy.” But the

President also makes it clear that promotion of human rights is not just a matter of values, but still

remains within the domain of national security. The 2014 speech in West Point is a very good

example. Obama contends that: “…the fourth and final element of American leadership: Our

willingness to act on behalf of human dignity. America's support for democracy and human rights

goes beyond idealism – it is a matter of national security.” He goes on by saying: “I believe that a

world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative, it also helps to keep us safe.”

Here he touches upon a concept that emerges as central to him in all analyzed speeches – freedom

or liberty.

Indeed, freedom and democracy surface as the two notions most commonly used by

president Obama to solidify and conceptualize human rights. While the pairing with democracy is not

surprising, having in mind also the European discourse on human rights that often includes

democracy, a little bit more attention should be paid to freedom. In a 2007 speech he states that the

freedom America promotes should not mean “simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot

box.” The same message is repeated only several months later, in the speech at the Woodrow Wilson

12

Center44 – “(f)reedom must mean freedom from fear, not freedom of anarchy.” And reiterated in the

2012 Yangon University speech: “freedom is not an abstract idea; freedom is the very thing that

makes human progress possible, not just at the ballot box, but in our daily lives.” This can be read as

Obama’s disapproval of the policy of import of democracy through force led by George W. Bush in

the Iraq war. Freedom is not an abstraction, but something that should be truly desired; the

expansion of rights will then be its tangible consequence. Another thing to consider is the relatively

rare pairing of human rights with peace, which is otherwise the concept most often mentioned as a

policy goal. That might be interpreted as a realization that the concept of peace is not as inextricably

linked to human rights as it probably was after the end of WWII which “inspired” the UDHR. The fact

that there is peace or rather that there is a lack of war does not necessarily mean that human rights

are protected and upheld everywhere.

As a significant element of freedom emerges the elimination of fear and mistrust. In the 2009

address to the Muslim world that has been a central focal point. „It will be hard to overcome decades

of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve”45, he promises. Freedom from

fear is also a central part in the Yangon speech: “In many ways, fear is the force that stands between

human beings and their dreams.” Obama relates the absence of fear also to the image of the US in

the world. In 2007, as a presidential candidate he recognizes that often people around the world

view America not as a savior, but as a power that instills fear and hate – “And it makes you stop and

wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel

hate?”. Almost six years later he reminds again: “…American leadership has always been elevated by

our ability to connect with people's hopes, and not simply their fears.”46

Attention should be paid to the concept of dignity, mentioned 31 times in 14 speeches (in

two more cases than human rights). Thus, dignity emerges as an important concept of its own in the

analyzed discourse. When discussing the future of the two Koreas and the historical example of

divided and reunited Germany, Obama acknowledges: “The currents of history cannot be held back

forever. The deep longing for freedom and dignity will not go away.” In the speech before the Air

Force Academy, the claim is even stronger: “And we will stay strong as the greatest force for freedom

and human dignity that the world has ever known.” In the 2014 speech at the Brisbane University

President Obama defines dignity: “…the United States will continue to stand up for the inherent

dignity of every human being. Now, dignity begins with the most basic of needs: a life free of hunger

and disease and want.” We believe that this persisting reference to dignity is noteworthy, since

dignity has for the most part remained a philosophical and moral issue. While human rights have

44

Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center, 2007. 45

Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09. 46

Remarks by the President at the National Defense University, 2013.

13

been defined in detail in international documents, dignity was not. In the discussed Obama speeches

it transpires as a universally inherent human characteristic that allows people to seek opportunity

and live decent lives. Dignity is that necessary ingredient that people need to achieve progress and

drive human history forward.

The Contextualization of Human Rights

Our interpretation of the presence of human rights in the examined speeches shows a thread that

runs through all of them, namely the attempt to merge material structures of force and prosperity

with ideational ones of values and ideas. A good example of this is the speech at the New Economic

School in Moscow. At that point Obama believes that Russia could be if not a friend, then at least a

global partner, but gives the following recipe for the country to follow in order to acquire this status:

“Think of the issues that will define your lives: security from nuclear weapons and extremism; access

to markets and opportunity; health and the environment; an international system that protects

sovereignty and human rights, while promoting stability and prosperity.” 47 The good relations

between Obama’s America and Russia lie not only in nuclear cooperation and increased trade, but

also in the enhanced observance of human rights and international law by the latter.

A similar message echoes in the “New Beginning” speech, when the president notes that

cooperation with the Muslim world is a matter of national interests to America, but at the same it

also comes naturally because America and Islam “...overlap, and share common principles –

principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”48 More recently, in

the wake of the controversial deal with Iran, Obama reminded that brute force is only one of the

ways, and not always a preferable one, to advance American interest. On the contrary, diplomacy

and persuasion should be used more often. His statement was supported by a reference to the

historical contribution of the US during the Kennedy presidency: “And what separates us from the

empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might. Since World

War II…we have used our power to try to bind nations together in a system of international law.”49

American power is visible not only on the battlefield; it is also manifested in the ability of the country

to lead the others towards a norm-setting and norm-guaranteeing system of international

institutions.

One of the most straightforward vocalization of the ideas that guide the foreign policy of his

administration comes in a 2012 speech at the Air Force Academy: “We're leading on behalf of human

47

Remarks By The President At The New Economic School Graduation, 2009. 48

Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09. 49

Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, 2015.

14

dignity and on behalf of freedom: standing with the people of the Middle East and North Africa as

they seek their rights; preventing a massacre in Libya with an international mission.” The research

also found that human rights and America’s commitment to their preservation is widely present in

remarks before military academies in the US. A year earlier, in 2011, the president defined America’s:

“…guiding stars: the liberty, the justice, the opportunity that we seek for ourselves and the universal

freedoms and rights that we stand for around the world.”50 In a 2010 address in West Point, Obama

again tied human rights to the immediate American security, using in one sentence two words widely

associated with human rights. He says: “And so a fundamental part of our strategy for our security

has to be America's support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding.” But

then he quickly added that human rights are also a matter of values: “And we will promote these

values above all by living them, through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution…” Here,

another observation should be made – the values advocated by the president are embedded in the

American civilization from its very beginning but at the same time they are universal.

This is a point that Obama makes in several of the analyzed speeches – the US cannot be

blamed for exporting values simply because these values are essentially universal. Sooner or later

peoples in Asia, Africa and Russia will internalize them, because this is the natural course of events.

In the Cape Town speech, Obama goes strong on this: “Now, I know that there are some in Africa

who hear me say these things, who see America's support for these values, and say that's intrusive.

Why are you meddling? I know there are those who argue that ideas like democracy and

transparency are somehow Western exports. I disagree.” He reiterates that in the 2014 Brisbane

speech: “And the same is true when it comes to issues of democracy and human rights. There are

times where when we speak out on these issues we are told that democracy is just a Western value. I

fundamentally disagree with that.” If there is one issue on which America will lead by example,

independently of its military might or economic prosperity, this is it – the spread of democracy and

human rights as fundamental values, inherent to mankind. Human progress is conditional upon the

solidification of these values and once the striving towards them is present, the US will be there to

offer support.

This leads us to another important theme identified in the course of the analysis. This is the

idea of America as the power that will stand by the weak and speak on their behalf and assist those

that want to live in democracy, freedom and dignity but lack the resources to do so. The 2010 West

Point speech provides a good expression of that idea: “America will always seek a world that extends

these rights…Where ideas are suppressed, we provide space for open debate…Where human dignity

is denied, America opposes poverty and is a source of opportunity. That is who we are. That is what

50

Remarks by the President at U.S. Coast Guard Academy Commencement, 2011.

15

we do.” While not denying American hard power, Obama believes also in the importance of wide,

national or international debate and the power of words. In his Moscow speech, he says: “rules must

be binding, violations must be punished, and words must mean something.”51 In the Woodrow

Wilson speech he is even more straightforward: “America must show – through deeds as well as

words – that we stand with those who seek a better life.”52 In Ireland, the President promises: “And

America will stand by you–always. America will stand by you always in your pursuit of peace.” In

Burma, Obama assures: “…America will support you every step of the way: by using our assistance to

empower civil society, by engaging your military to promote professionalism and human rights…” But

the reader is left with the impression that the journey to progress a country could take – this is a

journey it should embark on alone. It will not be forced to take that path by the United States. This

notion finds its best definition in the Cape Town speech: “We believe that when you control your

destiny, if you've got a handle on your governments, then governments will promote freedom and

opportunity, because that will serve you. And it shouldn't just be America that stands up for

democracy, it should be Africans as well.”53

Two Foreign Policies

Next we briefly discuss two cases, which we believe are a good example of the attempt by the

Obama administration to merge the power of ideas with the traditional importance of material

motivations. The first one is the case of the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention camp. In the

Woodrow Wilson Center speech, Obama concludes: “…in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the

detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values”54 and later on

promises: “…I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva

Conventions.”55 In a 2013 speech, the President admits that the detention camp is not only

unconstitutional but also counterproductive as it pushes away America’s allies: “Our allies won't

cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO.”56 In 2014 however, Guantanamo is

still not closed and at West Point the President states that American exceptionalism is grounded not

in the country’s evasion of international rules but in their affirmation: “…I will continue to push to

close Gitmo -- because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of

people beyond our borders.”57 Those of the analyzed speeches that contain a reference to

51

Remarks By The President At The New Economic School Graduation, 2009. 52

Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center, 2007. 53

Remarks by President Obama at the University of Cape Town, 2013. 54

Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center, 2007. 55

Ibidem. 56

Remarks by the President at the National Defense University, 2013. 57

Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony, 2014.

16

Guantanamo indicate both a material and an ideational motivation for its closing. On one hand,

detention there is not efficient. On the other hand, the camp clearly damages America’s reputation

of a country that respects human dignity and prohibits torture.

Of course, it is not only up to the President to close Guantanamo and the Congressional

opposition to its closing has been one of the reasons behind its continuous functioning. Earlier this

year, the President admitted that if he were given the chance to start over again, the first thing to do

would be to close the detention camp.58 However, according to recent signals, the President is

preparing a new strategy to fulfill one of its most significant promises. The White House is

supposedly in preparation of a plan for closure, as the closure being recently described as a “national

security interest.”59

Another policy, well-reflected in the speeches analyzed by us and in line with the attempt to

merge the material and the ideational has been Obama’s approach to foreign aid. In the Global

Affairs Center speech he declares: “The fifth way America will lead again is to invest in our common

humanity – to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and

opportunity tomorrow.”60 In а 2013 speech Barack Obama warned that actually “foreign assistance is

a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent.” This

year the president took a specific move in that direction, asking for reallocation of resources from

military spending to spending on international affairs, explaining that in today’s world they were only

parts of a single whole.61 One of Obama’s strongest motives for channeling more funds for foreign

assistance is that it could help eliminate some of the factors that create conflicts and then demand

US military involvement. As described by official sources, foreign aid: “…is a strategic, economic, and

moral imperative for the United States and vital to U.S. national security.”62

CONCLUSION

In the beginning of his presidential path, when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama

quoted Martin Luther King Jr.’s words about the “isness” of the man’s present condition and his

struggle to achieve the state of “oughtness” and called: “Let us reach for the world that ought to be –

that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.”63 In a 2012 speech at Hankuk

58

The Guardian. “Barack Obama regrets not closing Guantánamo Bay when first elected.” The Guardian.com, March 18, 2015. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/18/barack-obama-regrets-not-closing-guantanamo-bay-when-first-elected (Accessed August 2015). 59

BBC News. “Guantanamo Bay: Closure plan in 'final stages.” Bbc.com. July 22, 2015. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33626398 Accessed August 2015). 60

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2007. 61

“Obama on what most Americans get wrong about foreign aid.” Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzL_avUIlEE (Accessed August 2015). 62

Foreignassistance.gov. http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/ (Accessed August 2015). 63

The White House. Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2009. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize (Accessed August 2015).

17

University, the President reiterated his “refusal to accept the world as it is, the imagination to see the

world as it ought to be, and the courage to turn that vision into reality.”64 Two years later at West

point, Obama reminded also the American military that “American leadership also requires us to see

the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really

matters.”65 Obama’s two terms as president demonstrated that it is difficult to turn human rights

into a concrete and major foreign policy goal, without incorporating them into a larger discourse

about national security. But they also proved that ideas and norms have their place in the

formulation and implementation of foreign policy decisions, although their realization often depends

on factors outside the capabilities of the individual policy-maker. This comes to show that a deeper

analysis of the decision-makers’ ideational influences is always needed when we try to explain the

way in which a country behaves on the international arena.

In all speeches a recurrent theme has been the one of America that “stands by” the others.

On numerous occasions, the President stated that the US will support and stand by any country

whose peoples realize that the aspiration towards democracy, human rights and freedom is the only

natural path towards a life of dignity and opportunity. From the texts we studied here, emerged his

vision of an America that leads by example and supports rather than imposes and imports. But the

tumultuous times ahead – marked by the rise of ISIS, the uncertainty shaking the European ally and

the increasingly aggressive Russia – do not offer a fertile ground for a patiently waiting America.

BIBLIOGRAPHY “The Nature of Mixed Method Research.” Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/35003_Chapter1.pdf Adler, Emanuel and Peter M. Haas. “Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Winter, 1992), pp. 367-390. www.jstor.org (accessed March 2015) Adler, Emanuel. “Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions and Debates.” In Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons 112-145. Sage Publications, 2002. Adler, Emanuel. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3 (1997): 319-363. Bennett, Andrew. “Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis and Computer Assisted Content Analysis.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies, June 2015 vol. 43 no. 3 984-997. www.jstor.org (accessed July 2015), Boekle, Henning, Volker Rittberger and Wolfgang Wagner. “Norms and Foreign Policy: Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory”. p.8. Available at: https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/47193/pdf/tap34a.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed March 2015). Carlsnaes, Walter. “Foreign Policy.” In Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons 331-350. Sage Publications, 2002.

64

Remarks by President Obama at Hankuk University, 2012. 65

Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony, 2014.

18

Checkel, Jeffrey. T. “Constructivism and Foreign Policy.” In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne. 71-83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Grey, David.E. Doing Research in the Real World. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, 2009. Hansen, Lene. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge, 2006. Hardy, Harley and Phillips, “Discourse Analysis and Content Analysis: Two Solitudes? Available at www.braumoeller.info/.../2012/12/Discourse-Content-Analysis.pdf Hesse-Biber and Sharlene Nagy. The Practice of Qualitative Research. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2011. Hurd, Ian. “Constructivism.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Christian Reus-Smith and Duncan Snidal. 298-317. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Neuendorf, Kimberly A., “Content Analysis – A Contrast and Complement to Discourse Analysis.” Available at www.braumoeller.info/.../2012/12/Discourse-Content-Analysis.pdf Reus-Smit, Christian. “Constructivism.” In Theories of International Relations. 3rd edition. Edited by Burchill et al. 188-213. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Reus-Smit, Christian. “Constructivism.” In Theories of International Relations. 3rd edition. Edited by Burchill et al. 188-213. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Reus-Smit, Christian. “Human rights and the social construction of sovereignty.” Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 519–538. Risse-Kappen, Thomas. “Ideas do not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 185-214. www.jstor.org (accessed March 2015). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (Accessed August 2015). Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is what states make of it.” International Organization, Vol. 46 (1992). The Guardian. “Barack Obama regrets not closing Guantánamo Bay when first elected.” The Guardian.com, March 18, 2015. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/18/barack-obama-regrets-not-closing-guantanamo-bay-when-first-elected (Accessed August 2015). The White House. National Security Strategy February 2015. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf (Accessed August 2015) The White House. National Security Strategy May 2010. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf (Accessed August 2015) The White House. Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2009. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize (Accessed August 2015). BBC News. “Guantanamo Bay: Closure plan in 'final stages.” Bbc.com. July 22, 2015. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33626398 Accessed August 2015). “Obama on what most Americans get wrong about foreign aid.” Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzL_avUIlEE (Accessed August 2015). Foreignassistance.gov. http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/ (Accessed August 2015).

19

APPENDIX 1 – Remarks of Senator Barack Obama and Remarks of President Barack Obama arranged by year

1. Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2007. Available

at: https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/ (Accessed July 2015). 2. Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center, 2007. Available at:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:guz2UaZVD94J:www.cfr.org/elections/obamas-speech-woodrow-wilson-center/p13974+&cd=1&hl=bg&ct=clnk&gl=bg (Accessed July 2015).

3. Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2009. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan (Accessed July 2015).

4. Remarks By The President At The New Economic School Graduation, 2009. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-new-economic-school-graduation (Accessed July 2015).

5. Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09 (Accessed July 2015).

6. Remarks by the President at United States Military Academy at West Point Commencement, 2010. Available at: http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/westpoint_2010.html (Accessed July 2015).

7. Remarks by the President at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia, 2010. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/10/remarks-president-university-indonesia-jakarta-indonesia (Accessed July 2015).

8. Remarks by the President at U.S. Coast Guard Academy Commencement, 2011. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/18/remarks-president-us-coast-guard-academy-commencement (Accessed July 2015).

9. Remarks by the President at Irish Celebration in Dublin, Ireland, 2011. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/23/remarks-president-irish-celebration-dublin-ireland (Accessed July 2015).

10. Remarks by President Obama at Hankuk University, 2012. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/26/remarks-president-obama-hankuk-university (Accessed July 2015).

11. Remarks by the President at the Air Force Academy Commencement, 2012. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/remarks-president-air-force-academy-commencement (Accessed July 2015).

12. Remarks by President Obama at the University of Yangon, 2012. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/19/remarks-president-obama-university-yangon (Accessed July 2015).

13. Remarks by President Obama at the University of Cape Town, 2013. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/30/remarks-president-obama-university-cape-town (Accessed July 2015).

14. Remarks by the President at the National Defense University, 2013. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university (Accessed July 2015).

15. Remarks by the President at the United States Naval Academy Commencement, 2013. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/24/remarks-president-united-states-naval-academy-commencement (Accessed July 2015).

16. Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony, 2014. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/28/remarks-president-united-states-military-academy-commencement-ceremony (Accessed July 2015).

20

17. Remarks by President Obama at the University of Queensland, 2014. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/15/remarks-president-obama-university-queensland (Accessed July 2015).

18. Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, 2015. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal (Accessed July 2015).

APPENDIX 2 – Distribution Chart of Keywords according to Cases