USA and European Union (EU)

USA

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States of America.

It aims at removing trade barriers in a wide range of economic sectors to make it easier to buy and sell goods and services between the EU and the US.

On top of cutting tariffs across all sectors, the EU and the US want to tackle barriers behind the customs border – such as differences in technical regulations, standards and approval procedures. These often cost unnecessary time and money for companies who want to sell their products on both markets. For example, when an appliance is approved as safe in the EU, it often has to undergo a new approval procedure in the US even though the safety standards are similar.

The TTIP negotiations will also look at opening both markets for services, investment, and public procurement.  They could also shape global rules on trade.

CECED supports the TTIP negotiations between the EU and the United States, as a Partnership has the potential to deliver significant economic benefits and contribute to the development of both economies. An EU-US agreement could reduce excessive regulatory differences and unnecessary red tape. Further integration and streamlining of the transatlantic regulatory environment would significantly reduce costs for both CECED members and consumers of household appliances.

European Union

The European Union (EU) was founded in 1948 in the aftermath of World War Two to promote stability and economic cooperation between member states. Comprised of 28 European countries, the EU has established common institutions – the Council (which represents national governments), the European Parliament (which represents the people), and the European Commission (an independent body that represents the collective European interest) – to democratically legislate specific matters of joint interest to participating countries at a European level. The United States, who is not an EU member, has maintained a Mission to the EU since 1961.

The U.S. has a strong strategic partnership with the EU reflected in our close cooperation on regional crises and conflicts, and our extensive collaboration on a broad range of global challenges from counter-terrorism to nonproliferation. The U.S. and EU have significant trade and investment relations.

Did you know …

• EU and U.S.-based companies account for nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the top R&D companies worldwide.  (Source: Transatlantic Economy 2014)

• EU-U.S. merchandise trade climbed to more than $700 billion in 2015. (Source: U.S. Department of Commerce)

• The transatlantic economy generates close to $5 trillion in total commercial sales a year and employs up to 15 million workers in mutually “onshored” jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. (Source: Transatlantic Economy 2014)

• The transatlantic economy is the largest and wealthiest market in the world, accounting for over 50 percent of world GDP in terms of value and 40 percent in terms of purchasing power. (Source: Transatlantic Economy 2016)

• The U.S. and Europe are each other’s primary source and destination for foreign direct investment, together accounting for 56.7 percent of the inward stock of foreign direct investment (FDI), and a whopping 71 percent of outward stock of FDI. (Source: Transatlantic Economy 2014)

• U.S. investment in the Netherlands since 2000 was 14 times more than US investment in China during the same period. US investment in the UK was more than 10 times more, and in Ireland nearly six times more, than in China. (Source: Transatlantic Economy 2014)

• Eliminating or harmonizing just one-quarter of current non-tariff barriers in bilateral trade could boost a combined EU and US GDP by $106 billion. (Source: Transatlantic Economy 2014)

• According to a 2013 study, gains from a free trade agreement between the EU and U.S. could add up to a €210 billion (approximately $273 billion) boost to the two economies. (Source: Center for European Policy Research)

• The EU and US together contributed over $120 billion in official development assistance in 2012.  (Sources: OECD, USAID,EuropeAid)

• As of January 2011, nearly 1.7 million refugees from around the world call the US or an EU Member State home. (Source: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

• In 2011/12, more than 168,000 students from the US and EU studied abroad on the other side of the Atlantic. (Source:Institute of International Education)

• More than 11 million EU tourists traveled to the US in 2012. (Source: US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration)

Mission Statement: Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan

FY 2004-2009 

Mission Statement Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

American diplomacy in the 21st century is based on fundamental beliefs: our freedom is best protected by ensuring that others are free; our prosperity depends on the prosperity of others; and our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all. The history of the American people is the chronicle of our efforts to live up to our ideals. In this moment in history, we recognize that the United States has an immense responsibility to use its power constructively to advance security, democracy, and prosperity around the globe. We will pursue these interests and remain faithful to our beliefs.

Globalization is compressing distances and creating new opportunities for economic growth. It is expanding the exchange of ideas, providing an impetus for political freedoms. Millions of the world's poor, however, have not yet benefited from globalization, increasing their risk of alienation. Furthermore, transnational threats have emerged from globalization, enabling the creation of deadly global terror networks, spurring crime that reaches beyond borders, and spreading disease via the most mobile population in history. The spread of unconventional weapon technology risks giving tyrants and terrorists unprecedented power to harm the United States, our allies, and our friends. At the same time, famines and civil conflicts have erupted in countries steeped in poverty or constrained by autocratic rulers, creating waves of refugees and swelling the ranks of internally displaced populations. Traditional conflicts between and within states harm the innocent, with regional instabilities transmitting shock waves throughout our interconnected world.

In the coming years, the principal aims of the Department of State and USAID are clear. These aims are anchored in the President's National Security Strategy and its three underlying and interdependent components - diplomacy, development, and defense.

First, we will strive to build and maintain strong bilateral and multilateral relationships in pursuit of our mission. There is the prospect for a durable peace among the great powers based on alignment against common threats. We will strive to strengthen traditional alliances and build new relationships to achieve a peace that brings security, but when necessary, we will act alone to face the challenges, provide assistance, and seize the opportunities of this era. U.S. leadership is essential for promoting this vision, but others must share the responsibility. The history of American foreign policy suggests that we will increase our chances of success abroad by exerting principled leadership while seeking to work with others to achieve our goals.

Second, we must protect our nation, our allies, and our friends against the transnational dangers and enduring threats arising from tyranny, poverty, and disease. Global terrorism, international crime, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are new challenges born of traditional ambitions. Urban and rural poverty reflects the failure of statist policies, an absence of the rule of law, and poor governance. Radical ideologies are nurtured in societies deprived of the legitimate means of dissent, free markets, economic opportunity, and the free flow of ideas. A world in which half of humanity lives on less than $2 per day is neither just nor stable. HIV/AIDS is not simply a health issue. This pandemic is destroying precious lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions. Environmental degradation and deforestation threaten human health and sustainable development. Confronting these threats effectively is beyond the means of any one country, and calls for principled American leadership aimed at achieving effective coalitions that magnify our efforts to respond to these critical challenges.

Third, in confronting the intersection of traditional and transnational challenges, we will combine our diplomatic skills and development assistance to act boldly to foster a more democratic and prosperous world integrated into the global economy. We will not waver in our belief that all human beings deserve lives of dignity and the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. We will promote freedom of speech, conscience, and religion, the rule of law, and economic freedom. In concert with civil society organizations, we will speak out against human rights abuses and the trafficking of human beings.

The Department and USAID will pursue these aims through coordinated approaches and complementary programs. In addition to bilateral and multilateral relationships, we will engage with citizens and civil society organizations at home and abroad. We will work with U.S. nongovernmental organizations, institutions of higher learning, and private sector partners who share our objectives and help leverage our resources. Providing vital links to the American people and to counterpart organizations and institutions overseas, our U.S. partners help represent the best in America's technical, humanitarian, and management skills. We will support programs that encourage broad-based participation and civil society development as the foundation for democracy and good governance, economic growth and free enterprise, sound environmental stewardship, and quality education and healthcare.

In meeting our strategic objectives and goals, the Department and USAID are committed to protect U.S. national interests and advance peace, security, and sustainable development. While we will apply these principles globally, we will focus on the following key priorities during the timeframe of this Strategic Plan, many of which represent Presidential initiatives:

• Arab-Israeli Peace: The United States is committed to achieving the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace, security, and dignity. We seek to end terrorism and achieve a permanent reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The United States, in consultation with the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations, and in partnership with the Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab governments, will work to promote a lasting peace.

• A Stable and Democratic Iraq: Now that coalition military forces have ousted Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States will work side-by-side with the Iraqi people to build a free, democratic, and stable Iraq that does not threaten its people or its neighbors. Our goals are for Iraqis to take full control of their country as soon as possible and to maintain its territorial integrity. We will assist the Iraqi people in their efforts to adopt a new constitution, hold elections, and build a legitimate government based on the consent of the governed and respect for the human rights of all Iraqis. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but not one day longer.

• Democracy and Economic Freedom in the Muslim World: As we focus on reaching peace in the Middle East, we also recognize the profound need for democracy and market economies to meet the aspirations of a new generation. The Department will take the lead in working with countries in the Muslim world to advance economic reform, increase educational opportunity, and boost political participation, especially for women. Public diplomacy will be central to communicating our objectives and changing negative views of the United States. Through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and programs in non-Arab parts of the Muslim world, the Department and USAID will establish a new model of assistance delivery to ensure our funds support the individual citizens that can drive change from within.

• A Stable and Democratic Afghanistan: Helping Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability will require a continued commitment by the Department, USAID, and international donors to four interlocking objectives: (1) Afghanistan must establish internal and external security to ensure economic reconstruction, political stability, and stem the rise in opium production; (2) we must work to establish a stable, effective, and broadly representative central government; (3) economic development must bolster this new government and reduce dependence on donors; and (4) we must help the people of Afghanistan meet their critical humanitarian needs while reconstruction proceeds.

• Reduction of the North Korean Threat to the Region and World: The Department will continue to work with friends and allies, particularly South Korea, Japan, and China, to meet North Korea's challenge to peace and security. Our goal is the complete elimination, irreversibly and verifiably, of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea must know that this is the only route to end its self-isolation and deliver a better life for its people.

• Reduction of Tensions Between India and Pakistan: Both countries are key partners in the war on terrorism, and vital to our goal of preventing further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other dangerous technologies around the world. We will work to prevent the outbreak of war on the subcontinent. We seek broad-based bilateral partnerships with both India and Pakistan spanning a range of security, political, economic, social, and cultural issues. We will work with India to help complete promising economic reforms, reap the benefits of integration into the global economy, and generate opportunities for entrepreneurs and ordinary people in both our countries. We will work with Pakistan to stop terrorism, stabilize Afghanistan, reduce extremism, and strengthen education and institutions that promote the rule of law, constitutional democratic governance, and economic opportunity.

• Drug Eradication and Democracy in the Andean Region: The narcotics trade in the Andean Region, especially in Colombia, imposes a very high cost on its ordinary citizens in addition to being the major source of such drugs trafficked to the United States. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative through eradication, interdiction, and alternative development will support the fight against narcoterrorists and secure democracy, extend security, and restore economic prosperity in the region.

• Strengthened Alliances and Partnerships: Within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we will integrate new members into the alliance and develop joint capabilities to fight terrorism and respond to 21st century dangers. We will work with the European Union (EU) on transnational threats and challenges to include: (1) fighting terrorism; (2) combating HIV/AIDS; (3) advancing global trade while resolving trade disputes on a mutually advantageous basis; and (4) cooperating on regional crises. Our new relationship with Russia is yielding positive results for both countries in strategic arms reduction, counterterrorism, common approaches to regional conflicts, and development of Russia's energy resources. A key challenge is to find common ground with respect to transfer of dangerous technologies. In a changing and often dangerous environment, our network of robust bilateral alliances with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand will remain the linchpin of Pacific regional security. We encourage the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, whose citizens enjoy the blessings of liberty, that contributes to the fight against terrorism and proliferation, and that works with the United States and others to reduce dangers existing on the Korean Peninsula, in South Asia, and beyond.

• A More Effective and Accountable United Nations (UN): The United States participates in multilateral organizations like the UN for specific purposes: (1) to foster international peace and security; (2) protect the innocent; (3) advance freedom, human rights, democratic institutions, and economic development; (4) address humanitarian needs; and (5) raise the quality of people's lives through sustainable development focused on improving health, nutrition, and education around the world. We engage countries in the UN system to ensure that our priorities are taken seriously and our resources used wisely. The UN can only be truly effective if its member states willingly meet their responsibilities and adhere to the principles for which the organization was founded. It is vital that the United States exert robust leadership throughout the UN system in pursuit of its values and interests. We believe that the UN will be stronger and more effective if more Americans are given the opportunity to work in the UN and related institutions.

• HIV/AIDS Prevention, Treatment and Care: In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a $15-billion, 5-year Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief that will focus on prevention, treatment, and care in 14 severely affected countries in Africa and the Caribbean. The Department will work with USAID and other agencies to ensure these resources support our goals of saving lives, safeguarding people's health, and advancing regional stability.

• Reduced Threat of Famine: The United States is committed to finding longer-term solutions to food insecurity and working in partnership with developing countries to address this global problem. In particular, the food crisis in the southern African countries and Ethiopia and the war in Sudan have affected millions of people. The United States continues to meet critical needs in these countries, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. We want to increase the contribution of all donors to tackle urgent food shortages and find longer-term solutions. Famine is a preventable tragedy with the right economic and governance policies and institutions to prevent the conditions that lead to famine. Viable early warning systems and assessments will help mitigate disasters and increase preparedness and response.

• Accountable Development Assistance: President Bush has charted a new direction for development assistance by proposing the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). The goal is to increase U.S. development assistance by 50 percent over the next 3 years for countries that take responsibility for their own development by ruling justly, investing wisely in their people, and encouraging economic freedom. The Department and USAID will work with other agencies, the White House, Congress, and eventual recipient countries to make this initiative succeed in promoting good governance and prosperity.

• Aligning Diplomacy and Development Assistance: In pursuing our shared mission and goals in the international arena, U.S. development assistance [1] must be fully aligned with U.S. foreign policy. This means the Department and USAID must consistently and thoroughly review our policy and development programs as we strive to support those countries that are committed to democratic governance, open economies, and wise investment in their people's education, health, and potential. We will seek opportunities to program our resources in complementary and targeted ways. With the full support of the Secretary, our organizations will carry forward an agenda to implement new innovative strategies and eliminate redundancies, while ensuring that our diplomacy and development assistance produce results. As discussed later in this Strategic Plan, two joint Department of State and USAID councils will be established to accomplish this priority.
  

----------
1. Throughout this Strategic Plan, "development assistance" refers to all types of assistance as referred to in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

WHAT IS A U.S. MISSION?

---

IN DIPLOMATIC TERMS, “mission” has multiple meanings. All embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic posts in foreign countries are known collectively as missions and they all share the common mission of carrying out the foreign policy of the United States Government.

But the U.S. government is also a member of many international organizations, and our representatives to these organizations, and the work they do, are called diplomatic missions, usually listed with a capital M, such as the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

Missions are led by an ambassador and do some of the same work as embassies but with an ear and an eye to multilateral concerns: listening and reporting; communicating with media; advancing U.S. views; and negotiating with representatives of other countries and the staff from other international organizations.

The United States Mission to the United Nations in New York City, for example, is the nation’s largest mission to an international organization. It has a staff of over 200 people who represent the United States’ political, economic, legal, and military interests and American values at the United Nations.

The United States also has Missions to the African Union (in Addis Ababa), the Organization of American States (in Washington DC), the European Union (in Brussels), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (in Jakarta), NATO (Brussels), and many other international groups.

Mohamed Bouazizi TUNISIAN STREET VENDOR AND PROTESTER

Mohamed Bouazizi

TUNISIAN STREET VENDOR AND PROTESTER

Alternative Title: Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi

Mohamed Bouazizi

TUNISIAN STREET VENDOR AND PROTESTER

ALSO KNOWN AS

Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi

BORN

March 29, 1984

Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia

DIED

January 4, 2011

Ben Arous, Tunisia

Mohamed Bouazizi, in full Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi (born March 29, 1984, Sidi Bouzid, Tun.—died Jan. 4, 2011, Ben Arous, Tun.), Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation after being harassed by municipal officials catalyzed the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and helped inspire a wider pro-democracy protest movement in the Middle East and North Africa.

Bouazizi’s early life in Sidi Salah, a small village near the central Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid, was defined by economic struggle. Bouazizi’s father died when he was three, leaving the family with little income. Bouazizi became an important source of financial support for his mother and siblings, taking odd jobs from age 10 and selling fruit and vegetables from a cart as a teenager. After leaving high school without graduating, he searched unsuccessfully for a better job and grew increasingly frustrated with his work as a vendor, which generated only meagre income while exposing him to harassment from police officers and market inspectors, who often demanded bribes.

On Dec. 17, 2010, market inspectors confiscated some of Bouazizi’s wares, claiming that he lacked the necessary permit. Bouazizi’s relatives and one witness alleged that during the confrontation he was publicly humiliated by a female police officer who slapped him. Enraged, Bouazizi went to the local governor’s office to complain but was denied a hearing with the governor. Later in the day he set fire to himself outside the governor’s office, sustaining severe injuries.

Bouazizi’s treatment by officials quickly became a focal point for public anger, and his struggles with underemployment and corruption came to be seen as emblematic of the economic and societal difficulties facing ordinary Tunisians, especially young people. Erroneous reports that Bouazizi had been a university graduate distraught over his inability to find work reflected Tunisians’ anger at soaring rates of unemployment among recent university graduates.

By the time Bouazizi died of his injuries on Jan. 4, 2011, protests had spread throughout Tunisia, and opposition groups had begun to demand the removal of the corrupt and authoritarian regime of Pres.

Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, in power since 1987. The regime’s attempts to use force to suppress the protests drew international criticism, and the regime failed to placate the opposition with its offers of concessions. On January 14 Ben Ali was forced to resign and leave Tunisia as demonstrators marched in Tunis, many of them carrying signs and banners with Bouazizi’s image.

 In February 2011 the main square in Tunis was renamed after Bouazizi.

“Special Relationship” ? The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America..

The UK-U.S. “Special Relationship” 

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America is considered as:

a political, military and economic cooperation. 

A term “special relationship” was first mentioned by Winston Churchill in Fulton, 1946. 

He stated that “it is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall rule and guide the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war” (Churchill, 1946). 

But the term “special relationship” is a problematic one because such the description of a relationship lets to assume that the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America is unique by its nature but this assumption objects the traditional international relations assumption which states that a relationship between states can be only egoistic because the alliances are formed to achieve their own goals. 

But Britain and the United States not only collaborate because of their common interests but these two countries also share common history, culture and language.

  

A political cooperation between Britain and the United States partly is determined by the similarity of their national interests. Moreover, the UK-U.S. “special relationship” is described as an exceptional personal cooperation between the leaders of both countries which has an influence on political cooperation between the two countries. The most significant examples of such cooperation are:

Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair and George W. Bush cooperation (McNamara, 2008).  

In 1997 New Labour presented a programme with a “new approach” to foreign policy that suggested developing a more close relationship with European partners. What is more, it emphasized the necessity for Britain to advance a more positive negotiation position on European issues. 

But in reality Tony Blair‟s Government still gave a priority to the UK-U.S. “special relationship” in British foreign policy. After 9/11 terror attacks in the United States, the alliance between Britain and America became as strong as ever and that could be seen in the war on terror and later in the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Lunn et al., 2008).  Since World War II the United Kingdom demonstrated that it is a loyal and consistent America‟s ally. Moreover, Britain recognized the leadership of America in NATO, advocated the U.S. strategic policies and was a strong “Atlanticist” voice in the European Union (Wither, 2003). 

An alliance with the United States still remains the core of Britain‟s foreign and security policy. The UK Strategic Defence Review (1998) emphasizes Britain‟s close cooperation with the United States and the United Kingdom was named as the main partner of America. The benefits from this partnership are evident for both countries. 

* For instance, a partnership with a loyal partner – Britain – is important for Americans because Britain is a nuclear state which is strong in military area and British have a veto right in the UN Security Council. 

* What is more, Britain‟s membership in EU gives a possibility for America to strengthen its influence within Europe. 

* Meanwhile for Britain the partnership with the United States allowed to maintain its influence in international politics and also British had a possibility to get the ballistic missiles “Trident” and “Polaris” from Americans which were necessary for their nuclear weapon and Britain can expect to get a support from the United States during foreign policy crises (e.g. it was evident during the Falklands conflict). 

But the critics of British foreign policy argue that when Anglo-American interests do clash, the asymmetry of power in the relationship means that Britain must accept the American position for the sake of the “special relationship” (Murphy, 2002).  

A Military cooperation is one of the important segments in the “special relationship”. The same approach to the threats to the national security strengthens the military cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States. 

Both countries perceive the same threat to their national security: 

terrorism

mass destruction weapons

regional conflicts and failed (or failing countries).  

A nuclear cooperation is also the important part of the “special relationship”. This means that Britain has a possibility to use America‟s advanced technologies in nuclear field. What is more, the nuclear and intelligence information is exchanged between both countries. Although the United States undoubtedly dominate in this nuclear partnership, but Britain gets a more obvious direct benefit from this partnership – U.S. investments into nuclear weapons and submarine technologies help Britain to sustain its nuclear weapon. Such close nuclear cooperation means that Britain is the closest partner of the United States in the nuclear field and this cooperation helps to achieve the main goal – secure their national security.

Do you really know what 'Orwellian' means?

Orwellian

"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. 

It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practised by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four^[2] but political double-speak is criticized throughout his work, such as in Politics and the English Language.^[3]

Nineteen Eighty-Four uses themes from life in the Soviet Union and wartime life in Great Britain as sources for many of its motifs.^[4][5]

Orwell's ideas about personal freedom and state authority developed when he was a British colonial administrator in Burma. He was fascinated by the effect of colonialism on the individual, requiring acceptance of the idea that the colonialist exists only for the good of the colonised.^{[citation needed]}

There has also been a great deal of discourse on the possibility that Orwell galvanised his ideas of oppression during his experience, and his subsequent writings in the English press, in Spain. Orwell was a member of the Catalan Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) militia and suffered suppression and escaped arrest by the Comintern faction working within the Second Spanish Republic. Following his escape he made a strong case for defending the Spanish revolution from the Communists there, and the misinformation in the press at home. During this period he formed strong ideas about the reportage of events, and their context in his own ideas of imperialism and democracy.

Meanings

The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of The Party, especially when the Party is the State:

• Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
• State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
• Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family or any other close relationships.
• The adoration of state leaders and their Party.
• The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used are "doublespeak", and "newspeak".
• The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
• A (generally) dystopian future.
• The use of euphemism to describe an agency, program or other concept, especially when the name denotes the opposite of what is actually occurring. In 1984, the department that wages war is called the "Ministry of Peace"; in reality, departments responsible for engaging in offensive military action are named the "Ministry of Defense".

Big Brother

The most common sense of Orwellian is that of the all-controlling "Big Brother" state, used to negatively describe a situation in which a Big Brother authority figure – in concert with "thought police" – constantly monitors the population to detect betrayal via "improper" thoughts. Orwellian also describes oppressive political ideas and the use of euphemistic political language in public discourse to camouflage morally outrageous ideas and actions. In this latter sense, the term is often used as a means of attacking an opponent in political debate, by branding his or her policies as Orwellian. When used like this in political rhetoric if it is not sincere, it is interesting to note as it can be a case of a hypocritical Orwellian strategist denouncing Orwellian strategies.

Political language

Orwell tried to promote the use of more precise language in political discourse, and he criticised political language popular at the time, such as "running-dog lackey" and "Fascist octopus", which he said prevented thought. It seems unlikely that Orwell would have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied. The loose definition of the term and the often poor correlation between the real-life situations people describe as Orwellian and his own dystopian fiction leave the use of the adjective at best inexact and frequently politically inaccurate. In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derided the use of cliché and dying metaphors, which "even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent" and went on to say "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought".

In many of his essays and letters Orwell criticised words with formally precise definitions being used badly and the vague slide in meaning for many of these words. He was a fierce critic of Fascism but he would freely mock the promiscuous use of the word:

It would seem that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, youth hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I don't know what else.[7]

”

References

1. Jump up "What "Orwellian" really means - Noah Tavlin". TED Ed. Retrieved 4 October 2015.
2. Jump up Drabble, Margaret (2000). The Oxford Companion to English Literature (Sixth ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. p. 726. ISBN 0-19-861453-5.
3. Jump up Traub, James (January 5, 2016). "The Empty Threat of 'Boots on the Ground'". The New York Times.
4. Jump up Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-four, A Novel. New York: Harcourt, Brace. OCLC 366581.
5. Jump upTzouliadis, Tim (2008). The Forsaken. New York: Penguin Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-1-59420-168-4.
6. Jump up Orwell, George (2001). Orwell in Spain. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-191390-2.
7. Jump up "As I Please", 24 March 1944, Tribune