WHO 'CHOOSES' CONFLICTS, AND HOW?

The previous articles in the Social Development series demonstrated how each of the actors (policymakers, the media, the public and the academia) has a mutual influence on each of the other actors when it comes to agenda-setting on foreign conflict. Once a conflict is 'chosen' as being important and requiring attention and resources, other actors jump on in a sort of 'bandwagon' effect, so that soon all of the actors are talking about it. But certain key questions remain: who initially 'chooses' the conflict? Where does the spark come from? Which actors lead and which follow as the conflict goes global?

Who chooses conflicts and how?

Until the end of the Cold War, the answers to such questions were straightforward — the policymakers choose conflicts of interest, and they led all other actors. Today, with twenty-four-hour news, an ever more-powerful civil society, and an increasing number of actors taking an interest in foreign affairs, the answers may not be that simple. 

In the 1990s a number of studies were conducted to examine the so-called 'CNN effect' — the notion that the media could lead policymakers to intervene in conflicts through emotive and sustained media coverage. International NGOs intervene with humanitarian aid in conflict situations, regardless of the policies of their home governments. In 2006, the general public in the West mobilised petitions and massive demonstrations to `Save Darfur'. More and more academics studying international affairs are moving in and out of the policymaking arenas.

Yet despite these new developments, it would seem that the policymakers (as a group of actors) are still largely in control of the foreign policy agenda, and generally lead the others. They may have more pressure to contend with, but it is usually more a case of resisting or managing that pressure, or responding to pressure with token steps that don't affect overall policy objectives, rather than following the lead of other actors. Studies have shown that sustained media

pressure can be effective in significantly altering government policies, but only if there is a lack of policy or clashes among policymakers — not if government policy is firm. Emotive media coverage could not push the USA to intervene in Rwanda or in Chechnya. Geopolitics and national interest controlled those decisions. The spark that initially leads to a conflict being noticed may appear to be media pressure or public pressure at first, but often that too is the result of the attention of sectors within the policymaking arena that sparks media interest, which in turn sparks the public interest. 

This was seen in Somalia, where the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the USA used the media to draw attention to the crisis, which eventually snowballed into a 'chosen' crisis . Policymakers showed interest in Darfur before the media or the public became interested. It cannot be denied, however, that once a conflict is sparked and the media, general public and NGOs begin to show a concentrated interest in it, policymakers are usually forced by this pressure to do something. Whether this is a token attempt to show the media and the public that they are doing something, or a more concerted intervention will depend on how much their national interest is affected, and how high the level of risk is in the proposed form of intervention.