<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>
<jats:p>In this article, linguistic choices within the notion of political dialogue, meaning the constantly ongoing construction and discussion of political issues, are analysed in order to unmask discursive structures and strategies. This is done through a discursive analysis of public statements relating to four cases of occupational conflicts, meaning cases of conflict all of which involve aspects of military occupation – namely, Afghanistan, Georgia, Israel and Iraq. The public statements analysed in this article were made by Sweden’s former foreign minister, Carl Bildt. The basic presumption in this article is that no social relations can be seen as neutral. As a result it becomes interesting to unmask and analyse structures and strategies within the political dialogue. The theory used in this article is primarily based on research made within the fields of Peace and Conflict and Media and Communication. These fields offer suggestions on how to understand the basis for peace, conflict and communication. The methodology is built on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and a model consisting of three steps, inspired by Fairclough. The findings suggest that Bildt, as an actor within political dialogue, constructs meaning and power through public statements. This is done by using a moderate, or in Swedish lagom, approach built on a number of different Nodal Points, as well as a rational and logical rhetoric referring to history, culture, lore, law, human values and liberalism. In addition, it has also been found that Bildt is using consistent and moderate strategies when formulating public statements and that the political dialogue relating to occupational conflicts consists of a constant fight about the construction of meaning.</jats:p> |