Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

1

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

2

Introduction

Humour and critical geopolitics may appear antithetical at one glance; the former

perceived as a panacea for seriousness, and the latter associated with formality towards

understanding international political relations. However, humour as a form of popular

geopolitics is able to represent global politics in a way no other genre can – humour stands out in

its ability to “strafe the line between hilarious and offensive” (Ridanpaa, 2014: 152) and in so

doing, exposes the absurdity underlying long-standing wars like the ‘global war on terror’. This,

according to Kayam et al. (2014), is attributed to humour’s ability to stimulate an unconscious

opening of cognitive barriers, thereby allowing for the provocation of controversial issues

surrounding the ‘war on terror’ discourse. It is this characteristic that gives significance in

looking at humour as a geopolitical text through which the world can be perceived. As a caveat,

this is not to say that the production of (un)laughter is indicative of one’s political stand but

rather, creates room to further discuss generic political conventions in the broader context.

Using Sacha Baron Cohen’s The Dictator (2012), this paper aims to provoke a rethinking

of the generic geopolitical gaze, or ways of seeing and understanding global political events,

following the Bush Administration’s declaration of a ‘global war on terror’. Unlike Ridanpaa’s

(2014) approach, the paper focuses not on the ways in which reviewers conceptualise the film,

but rather on teasing out the geopolitical themes that are embedded in it and how they can

contribute to the ways in which global politics is conceived. The paper will first give a plot

summary of the film and will underscore the ways in which the film can be read. Thereafter,

geopolitical themes that are embedded in the film will be teased out and framed against the wider

context of the ‘war on terror’, elucidating parallels that might otherwise elude the attention of the

audience.

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

3

Baron Cohen’s The Dictator (2012)

Co-written by and starring actor Sacha Baron Cohen, The Dictator (2012) is situated

amidst the intensifying standoff between the UN and a fictional oil-rich African nation of

Wadiya as the latter is suspected of harbouring nuclear arms. After the UN resolves to intervene

militarily, Wadiyan dictator Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen (portrayed by Baron Cohen) heads

to America to address the UN Council in New York. Shortly after their arrival, Aladeen is later

kidnapped by Clayton, a hitman engaged by his uncle Tamir, replacing Aladeen with a body

double who Tamir intends to manipulate into democratising Wadiya. Aladeen manages to escape

the assassination attempt, although he is now unrecognisable as Clayton has shaved off his iconic

beard. Wandering through the streets of New York, Aladeen encounters his former head of

nuclear programme “Nuclear” Nadal – whom he thought he had previously executed – who later

agrees to aid him in thwarting Tamir’s plans and to restore Aladeen’s position as the ‘rightful’

dictator.

From the outset, it would appear that the film reinforces negative stereotypes, poking fun

at the narratives of the political ‘other’ and the dictatorship regime in which they are situated in.

Although Baron Cohen stated in the interview that the subjects of the satire are the dictators who

rule through fear, violence and oppression (Grossberg, 2012), an analysis of the film reveals

otherwise. The film can be seen to be simultaneously swiping at both the American ‘self’ and the

Middle Eastern ‘other’ through the creation of “infinite loops of absurdity” (Currin, 2012), where

every incident offers an opportunity for everyone – regardless of social class, ethnicity, sexuality

and gender – to look ridiculous (Pfeffer, 2012). Using literary tools like political irony and

sarcasm, the controversial nature of Baron Cohen’s works offer interesting vantage points on the

long-standing ‘war on terror’, bringing to fore perspectives that might otherwise be eclipsed by

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

4

dominant political logics of the US. Released in 2012, the film is placed in a position of

knowing, having access to the ‘dirty little secrets’ of the Bush Administration and its ‘war on

terror’. This gives the film novelty in that its satirical representations become more grounded,

appreciating its value in terms of how we can use this film to critically tease apart the narratives

surrounding the ‘war on terror’.

Threat as Simulacra

The Manichean political rhetoric was central to the ‘war on terror’ agenda (Kellner,

2007) yet threat itself was revealed to have never been present to begin with, contradictory to

what the Bush Administration had stated. Before analysing the discourses on ‘threats’, it is

essential to highlight how such threats are constructed. The construction of the ‘outside’ as a

terrain fraught with threat and danger stems from the assumption that such potential for danger

could have never originated from the ‘inside’ (Sparke, 2002). Often established as an inverted

image to the safe ‘inside’, this antithetical relationship between the ‘outside’ and ‘inside’

produces a rigid dichotomisation, leading to a fetishisation of the geopolitical gaze. The

foregrounding of this antithetical image establishes an understanding that the ‘outside’ is of

threat to the ‘inside’, thereby legitimising an intervention – often militarily – in the name of

securitising the ‘inside’, or to use Mackinder’s term, the ‘heartland’.

In the film, a toggling of scenes between Wadiya and the US revealed that the former is

not as threatening or dangerous as it was conceived to be. While Wadiya did in fact harbour

nuclear weapons, Aladeen’s foolishness served to problematise this rigid dichotomy. Political

irony is used here to expose the absurd nature of the UN’s ultimatum, that the resolution to

intervene militarily is unreasonable given Aladeen’s folly. By coming to such a resolution on a

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

5

country whose leader can’t even differentiate between cartoons and “research films”, or for that

matter believes that a round-headed missile will “bounce off” Israel only to blow Wadiya up, it

precludes the US from qualifying as a just country. The irony here lies in the fact that Wadiya is

anything but threatening apart from the presence of a nuclear programme.

Similar to the film, it is ironic how the US conceived that there was a clear danger in the

form of Iraq when there none (Le Billon and El Khatib, 2004). In his ultimatum speech in 2003,

Bush indicated that “[i]ntelligence gathered by this and other governments leave no doubt that

the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”.

Bush added that as the “danger [was] clear”, the United States and other nations “will do

everything to defeat [the threat]”. However, this was proven otherwise when the House

Democratic Committee Staff (2007: 53) found that “members of the Bush Administration

misstated, overstated and manipulated intelligence with regard to linkages between Iraq and Al

Qaeda”. In fact, an updated and revised copy of “Iraq Support for Terrorism” in January 2003

revealed that there was no concrete evidence that points to Baghdad having prior knowledge of

9/11 or any other Al Qaeda attacks (House Democratic Committee Staff, 2007). In that sense,

both Wadiya and Iraq can be likened to simulacrum, countries which exist geographically –

Wadiya in the cinematic realm – yet whose presence is distorted such that it is conceived to be a

‘threat’ to the American ‘inside’ by the American citizen. As such, what was the motivation for

military intervention if it was not to address the threat in Iraq?

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

6

The Hypocrisy of American Democracy

The film suggests that the (American) democracy is hypocritical as it has utilised the idea

of a ‘war on terror’ as a moniker to an ulterior motive. Consider this speech of Aladeen

explaining to the American audience the positive aspects of dictatorship:

Imagine if America was a dictatorship: You could let 1% of the people have all

the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their

taxes and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the

needs of the poor for healthcare and education. Your media would appear free,

but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap

phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You

could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular

racial group and no one would complain! You could use the media to scare the

people into supporting policies that are against their interests. I know this is hard

for you Americans to imagine, but please try.

The three emphases added to the text serves to underscore the dominant themes in the film and

will be used as starting points for further analyses in the following paragraphs.

(American) Democracy vis-à-vis Dictatorship

“I know this is hard for you Americans to imagine, but please try.”

Political sarcasm used here is not meant to be directed at any regimes of dictatorship, but

rather to elucidate the similarities between American democracy and dictatorship. American

democracy in the wake of the ‘war on terror’ seems to depart from Wilkinson’s qualification of

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

7

American democracy, which is that the “[r]espect for law and fundamental rights is what

distinguishes democratic systems from the murky worlds of dictatorship and tyranny” (2006:

64). Rather, American democracy under the Bush Administration qualifies under Aladeen’s

definition of dictatorship as reflected in his speech.

In addition to that, one of the Bush Administration’s reasons for intervening in Iraq is the

installation of a democratic system, which is believed to be a panacea to failing states and that it

“mitigate[s] the catalysts for internal instability and ultimately, terrorism” (Hehir, 2007: 311).

Yet, according to Gregg Muttitt in his book, Fuel on the Fire, he stated that the real objective of

the ‘war on terror’ was to stabilise oil flows in response to Iraq’s destabilising influence to the

international oil flow (Ahmed, 2014). This motivation also explains why the ‘war on terror’ is a

long-standing one. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document indicates that

“the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides that immediate justification” for US’s substantial

presence in the Gulf (Ahmed, 2014). As such, this, and the entire speech made by Aladeen

served to provoke a rethinking of democracy; to draw parallels between America’s democracy

and dictatorship. This suggests an emancipation and educative eye-opener for the Americans on

the matter of democracy that seemingly eludes their attention in the quotidian landscape. This

understanding problematises the supposed democracy/dictatorship binary and, allows for an

alternative framing of (American) democracy as a resource-siphoning imperialist that utilises the

‘war on terror’ narratives as a moniker for its predatory objectives (Jhaveri, 2004).

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

8

What Fuels the ‘War on Terror’?

“You could lie about why you go to war.”

In the film, it is revealed that Tamir’s motivation to eliminate Aladeen and turn Wadiya

into a democracy is fuelled by his intention to open up Wadiya’s oilfields to the international

market. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the US’s real intent behind removing Saddam

Hussein from power – to gain control of Iraq’s oilfield. Consider this scene of Tamir speaking to

representatives of oil companies regarding his plans to open up of Wadiya’s oilfields upon

democratising Wadiya:

Once that constitution is signed, I will be able to sell Wadiya’s oil rights.

Gazrprom, you will have control of Wadiya’s Southern oilfields. BP, you will

control the north. Exxon you will have all [of Wadiya’s] offshore rights [...] And

then Mr Lao, PetroChina you will have lease on our shale reserves.

In response to that Mr Lao of PetroChina states, “[but] some of those reserves are in densely-

populated areas”, to which Tamir simply replies, “Then unpopulate them”. Wadiya, in that sense,

can thus be framed as a contested space, as a homeland for Wadiyans and, using Mackinder’s

term, a ‘heartland’ pivotal for securing resources.

This is reflective of the 2003 Iraq invasion. While officials actively asserted that the

motivation behind the invasion had nothing to do with Iraq’s oil and that it only wanted to

further “the cause of peace and stability” (Klare, 2004: 7), further analysis of the administration’s

war preparation reveals otherwise. A briefing by an unnamed “senior Defense official” –

strongly believed to be then-Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz – revealed that strategies were

crafted to allow the US to “secure and protect [the oilfields]” and that the Bush Administration

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

9

“sought to capture Iraq’s oilfields intact to provide a source of revenue for the reconstruction of

the [US]” (Klare, 2004: 7). Strategies clearly reflect the objective to siphon more oil from Iraq,

which was only possible if a stable government was installed, thereby opening Iraq’s oilfields to

exploitation by US firms (Klare, 2004). Both Wadiya and Iraq can thus be understood as

‘heartlands’ (Jones et al., 2004) where, if controlled, could bestow the governing body with

influential control over the global oil supply since Iraq possesses more proven reserves than any

other country except Saudi Arabia.

Racist? Just a random security check

“You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group and no one would complain!”

Criminal profiling was central in distinguishing ‘threat’ from safety but this process is

problematic in that it is often practiced as racial profiling instead, resulting in many innocent

prisoners detained in Guantanamo Bay yet no one complained. The imprisonment of the innocent

was not debated earlier in the ‘war on terror’ as, according to Lawrence Wilkerson, former right-

hand man to Colin Powell, the war had legitimised the capture (Harris, 2013). Notions the

‘us’/’them’ binary is central to this practice of criminal profiling. The scripting of the ‘outside’ as

a terrain of threat is embedded with racist implications (Sparke, 2002) to the point that it

naturalises the notion that the ‘other’ is constitutive of that threat. This, according Mains (2004),

is due to the inability of the US to regulate and ‘fix’ borders around potential ‘threats’ to the

US’s heartland, forcing them to map this fear onto the bodies of the ‘other’. As a result, this

allows for a dichotomisation of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’.

This rigid dichotomisation of the American ‘self’ and the non-American ‘other’ on ethnic

grounds first makes its appearance when Aladeen meets Clayton. After a formal introduction,

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

10

Clayton adds that he “hates Arabs”, to which Aladeen replies that it is “fine because [he] is not

an Arab”. Clayton disagreed, stating that “[they are] all Arabs to [him] – the Blacks; the Jews

[…and ] in fact, anyone from outside of America is technically an Arab”. I added an emphasis to

the term ‘outside’ as this scene suggests a very simplistic view in that Clayton subsumes anyone

that is outside of America as Arabs, where ‘Arabs’, in this case, is reduced to a moniker for

‘outsiders’.

Fig. 1 Facial expressions before (above) and after (bottom) speaking in Wadiyan (screen capture)

At one point, a staid American couple mistook Aladeen and Nadal for terrorists plotting a

“9/11 2012”, eventually landing the Wadiyan duo in prison. The novelty of this scene lies in the

quick change in facial expression (Fig. 1) and gestures that was observed when Aladeen and

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

11

Nadal began conversing in Wadiyan. The presence of subtitles was central in exposing the

absurd. By granting the audience access to what was actually conversed in Wadiyan, it serves to

highlight how many have been quick to judge, especially upon hearing Arabic being conversed.

As revealed in the film, Baron Cohen was in fact gibbering in Hebrew whenever he pretends to

be speaking in Arabic (Pfeffer, 2012).

While these scenes may invite unlaughter as a gesture of disapproval as they may be

interpreted as expressions of racial bigotry, I would argue otherwise as these two scenes are

examples in how this film simultaneously swipes at both the American ‘self’ and the political

‘other’, thereby exposing the absurdity that underlies the narratives of the ‘war on terror’. This is

more evident in the first scene highlighted. The absurd lies in the way Clayton simplistically

views the world in a duality – the ‘insider’ Americans, and the ‘outsider’ non-Americans. The

way in which he uses the term ‘Arab’ is also worth mentioning, especially in the way he

associated Aladeen as an Arab despite knowing he is from Wadiya. This parallels the situation

during the ‘war on terror’ in the ways in which terrorist profiling utilised ethnicity and Middle

Eastern semiotics as the basis of singling out potential ‘threats’.

Conclusion

Central to this film are the conflicts that take place following the Bush Administration’s

declaration of a ‘war on terror’, to which the film reveals is nothing but absurd. The Dictator as a

film utilises the long-standing ‘war against terror’ in the Middle East as a backdrop and can be

likened to the 1998 Otpor movement in Serbia (Nikolayenko, 2013). Humour, as a subversive

tool against dominant political ideologies, satirises those in power in that, according to Gene

Sharp in his 1973 book The Politics of Non-Violent Action, it targets the very structures of power

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

12

that rely on maintaining discipline amongst its people through institutions like law and order

(Dodds and Kirby, 2013). The case of the Otpor movement in Siberia illustrated how satire may

translate into political action – not only are those in power mocked, but would lose support as

people withdraw their support for the government. The same can be said for the ‘war on terror’

which saw a decline in support over time as people began questioning the motive of the war. By

exposing the absurd nature of the conflicts surrounding the ‘war on terror’, it elucidates

particular notions of political truth that might otherwise remain eclipsed behind the dominant

Bush Administration narratives on the ‘war on terror’. Films are essential in allowing the

citizenry to make better sense of the world, not so much as mere receptors of state hegemony.

Films thus function as tools that allow the citizenry to be more discerning towards political

conventions by encouraging a provocation of political conventions that elucidate what might

otherwise be obscured.

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

13

Reference

Ahmed, N. (2014, March 20). “Iraq invasion was about oil”, The Guardian,

www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-

energy-peak-scarcity-economy, last accessed: 5th

October 2014.

Bush, G.W. (2003). Ultimatum speech from the Cross Hall in the White House, delivered 17th

March 2003, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq, last accessed: 5th

October 2014.

Currin, G.H. (2012, May 16). “Sacha Baron Cohen spoofs post-9/11 US in The Dictator”, INDY

Week.com, http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/sacha-baron-cohen-spoofs-post-911-us-

in-the-dictator/Content?oid=3069105, last accessed: 29th

September 2014.

Dodds, K. and Kirby, P. (2013). “It’s not a laughing matter: Critical geopolitics, humour and

unlaughter”, Geopolitics, 18(1): 45-59.

Grossberg, J. (2012, May 16). “Sacha Baron Cohen’s The Dictator under fire from Arab

Americans”, E! News, www.eonline.com/news/316704/sacha-baron-cohen-s-the-dictator-

under-fire-from-arab-americans, last accessed: 29th

September 2014.

Harris, S. (2013, April 26). “Lots of people knew there were innocent prisoners at Guantanamo”,

Washingtonian, http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/dead_drop/counterterrorism/lots-

of-people-knew-there-were-innocent-people-imprisoned-at-guantanamo.php, last

accessed: 8th

October, 2014.

Hehir, A. (2007). “The myth of the failed state and the war on terror: A challenge to the

conventional wisdom”, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1(3): 307-332.

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

14

House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (2007). The Constitution in Crisis, Canada:

Skyhorse Publishing.

Jhaveri, N.J. (2004). “Petroimperialism: US oil interests and the Iraq war”, Antipode, 36(1): 2-

11.

Jones, M., Jones, R. and Woods, M. (2004). An introduction to political geography: Space, place

and politics, London: Routledge.

Kayam, O., Sover, A. and Galily, Y. (2014). “Humor, media and the public discourse: A case

study of humor and politics”, French Journal for Media Research, 1.

Kellner, D. (2007). “Bushspeak and the politics of lying: Presidential rhetoric in the “war on

terror””, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37(4): 622-645.

Klare, M. (2004). “Bush-Cheney energy strategy: Procuring the rest of the world’s oil”, Foreign

Policy in Focus, 1(13): 1-10.

Le Billon, P. and El Khatib, F. (2004). “From free oil to ‘freedom oil’: Terrorism, war and US

geopolitics in the Persian Gulf”, Geopolitics, 9(1): 109-137.

Mains, S.P. (2004). “Imagining the border and Southern spaces: Cinematic explorations of race

and gender”, GeoJournal, 59(4): 253-264.

Nikolayenko, O. (2013) “Origins of the movement’s strategy: The case of Serbian youth

movement Otpor”, International Political Science Review, 34(2): 140-158.

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik A0110600J

15

Pfeffer, A. (2012, May 17). “Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘The Dictator’ commits crimes against

comedy”, http://www.haaretz.com/life/arts-leisure/sacha-baron-cohen-s-the-dictator-

commits-crimes-against-comedy-1.431067, last accessed: 4th

October 2014.

Ridanpaa, J. (2014). “’Humour is serious’ as a geopolitical speech act: IMdB film reviews of

Sacha Baron Cohen’s The Dictator”, Geopolitics, 19(1): 140-160.

Sparke, M. (2002) “Outsides inside patriotism: The Oklahoma bombing and the displacement of

heartland geopolitics”, In G.O Tuathail and S. Dalby (Eds.), Rethinking Geopolitics, New

York: Routledge.

Wilkinson, P. (2006) “Law enforcement and criminal justice”, Terrorism versus democracy: The

liberal state response. 2nd Ed. New York: Routeledge, 65-88.