TA3BEER

One of the provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 actively forbids Voice of America to broadcast in the United States. Today, of course, this provision, though still technically followed, has been rendered impotent. Why? Because the internet’s strange mixture of “there and now”—to use anthropologist Shanyang Zhao’s felicitous phrase—allows for livestreaming of content irregardless of regional borders. Externally directed propaganda efforts are thus now easily accessible to anyone in the internal U.S. audience who cares to listen. In much the same way, the internet has transformed information releases aimed at the U.S. citizenry into documents that communicate with a much larger, global audience.

What then, do items like travel warnings—in theory specifically targeted to U.S. citizens, but available to virtually anyone with online access—actually convey? It turns out quite a bit. This is a topic worthy of a much larger study, but here I will briefly explore five travel warnings issued by the U.S. Department of State in the months of March and April of 2011: those for Yemen, Mauritania, Iraq, Bahrain, and Syria.

But first, a word on Wordles. The image--Wordle--above, plus the five subsequent images, displays word frequencies (set to a maximum of 150 words displayed), with the most common words represented with the largest letters. This first one is a composite of the texts of all five of the travel warnings; each of the subsequent ones reflects only a single text. Their value lies in their strong visual representations of the relative weight given to different ideas. Of course, since they only measure the frequencies of specific words, rather than underlying concepts or even stems, their worth should not be overstated. That said, they do offer an interesting overview of reiterated terms. And most particularly, through the relative size of the country names, they clearly delineate a perception of the countries’ relationship--at least as it has been linguistically manifested.

This travel warning, issued on March 6, 2011, is the shortest of all of the travel warnings, coming in at only 453 words. It is also remarkable for the fact that it is the only one of the five to also offer an Arabic version. From the Wordle, it is clear that “U.S.” and “Yemen” occur almost equally frequently (15 and 12 times respectively).

Interestingly, the violent reactions of the Saleh regime to the protests that began in mid-January and continue to this day are quietly tucked away under the term “civil unrest.” This civil unrest--listed as a trigger for the issuing of this travel warning--repeatedly follows “terrorist activities,” as if merely an afterthought. Even piracy, the third security threat mentioned, receives more sentence space than this civil unrest does.

In contrast to the Yemen travel warning, the warning for Mauritania, issued March 11, 2011, is the longest of all of the warnings examined, comprised of 1246 words. Again, “U.S.” and “Mauritania” are roughly the same size, with 19 and 21 mentions respectively. Also in contrast with the warning for Yemen, here specific locations and groups also have a strong visual presence in the Wordle (e.g., Nouakchott and AQIM).

Indeed, whereas the Yemen travel warning was surprisingly sparse in details of the ongoing demonstrations and violent attempts to suppress them, this travel warning overflows with particulars of terrorist attacks stretching back to December 2007.

Interestingly, too, the text situates U.S. citizens within a broader category of “foreign nationals” and then proceeds to detail attacks on French, Italians, Spanish, and Israelis. It is the only one of the five travel warnings to offer this kind of narrative frame.

The Iraq travel warning, issued April 12, 2011, is the second longest, at 1144 words. Here the Wordle shows very clearly the relative weights given in the warning to “U.S.” and “Iraq” (42 and 27 mentions respectively). Interestingly, it is also the only warning among the five in which the word “government” appears so frequently (7 times; the next most frequent example is the Syria travel warning, with 2).

Perhaps not surprisingly, this travel warning demonstrates its predominant narrative frame quite clearly. The second paragraph is entirely given to a description of the withdrawal of U.S. forces--a description that reads as self-consciously careful in tone without providing any analysis of the potential relevance of this fact to the travel situation. A larger historical context that is assumed but never described directly can be seen in repeated assurances of improvement. Thus, for example, “...has been more stable relative to the rest of Iraq in recent years,” “...there have been significantly fewer terrorist attacks and lower levels of insurgent violence,” “...there have been no recent attacks on civilian aircraft,” etc.

Finally, there is but a single passing mention of the various demonstrations that have been ongoing in Iraq since February (“...avoid crowds, especially rallies or demonstrations”). Although, to be fair, perhaps the author(s) of the travel warning deemed these less significant than worries like unmarked landmines along the Turkey-Iraq border. On the other hand, it does seem odd not to mention demonstrations that have led to riots and fatalities when detailed description is devoted to methods of attack (magnetic bombs, improvised explosive devices, etc.).

The Bahrain travel warning, also published on April 12, 2011, was the second smallest after Yemen, coming in at 630 words. “U.S.” and “Bahrain” are again almost equal, with 18 mentions of the former and 16 of the latter. On May 13th it was replaced by a travel alert.

As with the Iraq travel warning--and in strong contrast to the detailed historical context provided in the Mauritania warning--a larger context is assumed but unspecified in phrases such as “...daily routines are returning to normal” and “...there is a returning semblance of normalcy in day-to-day life.” Curiously, given the bloody crackdowns on demonstrations in mid-March, as well as the continued--albeit much smaller--protests, the warning (again, published on April 12th) begins, “The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the potential for ongoing political and civil unrest in Bahrain” (emphasis added).

In addition, the warning makes multiple use of a rhetorical device similar to that known to ancient Roman orators as “praeteritio,” the technique of drawing attention to something by specifically denying an interest in it (literally, “I pass over”). Or in this case, pairing the denial of a concern with an exhortation to take the concern seriously. Thus, “While demonstrations have not been directed toward Westerners, U.S. citizens are urged to remain alert...”

The Syria travel warning was issued on April 25, 2011 and comprised 810 words. As the Wordle makes clear, there are far more instances of “U.S.” than “Syria” (23 as opposed to 11).

In stark contrast to the lack of information in the Bahrain and Yemen travel warnings concerning those countries’ popular demonstrations and violent governmental responses to them, the Syria travel warning clearly states the widespread nature of the Syrian protests, the violence of the government’s responses, and the consequent fatalities. Thus the second paragraph begins, “Since March 2011, demonstrations throughout Syria have been violently suppressed by Syrian security forces, resulting in hundreds of deaths.”

Unlike the Bahrain and Iraq travel warnings which strive to emphasize ever-increasing stability, this one draws on descriptions of violence and volatility. Indeed, its overall tone is different from the other four. Thus, for one thing it directly states that “Contrary to the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, of which Syria is a signatory, Syrian authorities generally do not notify the U.S. Embassy of the arrest of a U.S. citizen until days or weeks after the arrest.” For another, it uses scare quotes; for example, “...especially in the case of persons detained for “security” reasons.”

As a final, intriguing note, this travel warning is also the only travel warning to urge readers to visit the Bureau of Consular Affairs “for [i]information on “What the Department of State Can and Can’t Do in a Crisis.””

Certainly, some of the linguistic and content choices described here may be attributable to the quirks of individual authors; however, it seems unlikely that they all can. Indeed, many of these choices reflect specific narrative frames and political stances. And perhaps there have always been such elements. Perhaps they are a consistent feature of travel warnings--possibly now amplified and intensified by online publication and the presence of a global audience.

By Amy Johnson