Who Gets “Condemned”? Strategic Disappointment in U.S. Foreign Policy

• In Event: Text Analysis in Foreign Policy

Abstract

On May 11, 2021, amidst an escalation of violence in Jerusalem, a reporter at the State Department Daily Press Briefing pressed the department spokesperson for a response to the crisis. “[Today], you again condemned the attacks against Israel by the Palestinian side,” the reporter said. “But yesterday, you fell short of condemning the pictures of Palestinian children killed as a result of Israeli airstrikes…does the State Department have anything to say against that?” The spokesperson repeatedly declined to condemn Israeli actions, merely stating that the department regretted the loss of all innocent life.
This type of exchange is not unique to this briefing, nor to the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Reporters regularly ask the spokesperson to condemn specific acts, and the spokesperson often declines to do so. This is not to say that the State Department does not use the term; rather, that the spokesperson is very particular about what – and especially who – deserves the U.S. Government’s condemnation. Using a corpus of State Department press briefings from 2000-2022, this paper examines the use and non-use of condemnatory language. Through this dataset I trace patterns in condemnatory language, including when and how lighter terms like expressing “disappointment” moves into more serious levels of “concern” and, finally, full condemnation.
I use these patterns to argue that the State Department’s rhetorical choices are judicious and strategic, sending specific signals to allies and non-allies alike about shifting U.S. foreign policy. This paper, part of my larger dissertation project on word choice and credible signaling between states, therefore contributes to the increasing international relations literature on foreign policy rhetoric and the day-to-day practice of diplomacy.

Author

• Jenna Gibson, University of Chicago