The decision-making (or perhaps more appropriately: awareness-making) process of the public is quite varied, given the many types of actors within what we refer to as the public. This topic will examine the internal dynamics and the external influences on the public agendas, focusing on the general public, interest groups, corporations and NGOs.
It is quite difficult to gauge the independent mechanisms behind which the general public responds to foreign conflict, because the public does not generally have its own independent means of gathering such information, and is thus almost entirely dependent on outside sources. It is perhaps more useful to look at the factors behind the general public’s response after it has already been influenced by external actors that is, after a conflict has been placed on the agenda of the general public.
Internal factors affecting public response to foreign conflict include the ability to identify and to sympathise with victims of conflict. This may be related to race or religion, a study in the USA, for example, found that white audiences attached more importance to unemployment as a national issue after seeing the plight of an unemployed white man than those who saw the plight of an unemployed black man (Iyengar and Kinder, 1987: 41).
The ability to sympathise with a victim is often dependent on the perceived innocence or blamelessness of the particular victim. Where conflict is seen as a manifestation of ‘tribal chaos’ or ‘ancient grudges’, the perceived innocence of the victim is low and the response is equally low. These issues may also be connected to the perceived simplicity of the conflict.
Another factor that may affect public response is guilt (or anger) over previous inaction. This is a factor in public response to Darfur, which is connected to the neglected Rwanda conflict by the word ‘genocide’, and ‘never again Rwanda’ is a powerful emotional motivator. These factors become effective in mobilising the public if they feel that something can be done, and that they themselves can do something.
All of these factors work against attention being given to the conflict in the DRC. The DRC conflict does not attract public sympathy because it is black on black violence, is highly complex, and it is difficult to isolate and easily identify groups that can be considered blameless, particularly when so little information is available to begin with.
Interest groups based on race, religion or national identity draw their strength from a number of factors: assimilation into the host society, maintenance of links with the homeland, strong leadership, access to government institutions, and the ability to form mutually beneficial relationships with policymakers (Haney and Vanderbush, 1999: 341-361). All of these factors are reasons behind the strength of the Jewish lobby in the USA and other Western countries, but they are also the reasons behind the weakness of the African lobbies in the West.
For historical reasons dating back to the era of slavery, citizens of African descent are more likely than other groups to occupy lower socio-economic groups, and have been largely politically marginalised. Furthermore, with much of the African-American population coming from a background of slavery, the connection with the ‘homeland’ is weak (many do not know which part of Africa they have come from). There may be general sympathies towards Africa in general, but this is too broad for any effective mobilisation in response to specific conflicts.
Corporations are motivated by the pursuit of profits. While it can generally be said that peace fosters economic development, this does not necessarily apply to the extraction of natural resources, which makes up a major part of the interest of Western corporations in Africa. In order to facilitate the extraction of the maximum amount of resources at the lowest possible cost, corporations may make deals with governments or rebel groups (as they have in the DRC).
Deals with governments may be highly advantageous to the corporations, with little benefit for the host government or citizens, and may be possible only through corrupt practices. Deals for the extraction of oil resources perceived to, have little benefit for the host communities are a key source of violence in the Niger Delta in Nigeria.
But profits are not only dependent on the raw ability to extract the maximum resources at the minimum cost. Damage to reputation at the consumer side may adversely affect profits, necessitating adjustments in corporate strategies. As a number of advocacy groups in the West conducted campaigns aimed at raising public awareness of the issue of ‘blood diamonds’ and encouraging boycotts, for example, the diamond industry found itself in a position where bad publicity would harm its profits. It responded by actively cooperating in the process to identify and certify the origin of diamonds and to curb the trade in diamonds associated with conflict. NGOs involved in conflict-related humanitarian aid and advocacy have humanitarianism as their base principle.
Most major NGOs were formed as a response to humanitarian suffering in conflicts: Save the Children after World War I, CARE from World War II, World Vision from the Korean War, and MSF from the Nigerian Civil War. Their purpose is to provide humanitarian assistance to those suffering from conflict and other emergencies. Unable to function without adequate resources, however, NGOs need to pay considerable attention to fundraising and the availability of funds for particular crises.
The higher profile a conflict is, the greater the availability of funds from the general public and from governments is likely to be. This is not always about organisational survival, NGOs also tend to have an instinctive organisational desire to expand and thrive, and will thus be likely to participate in aid operations that will enhance their reputation and fame (which will improve their credibility and ability to fundraise in the future). Security concerns for their activities may also affect the activities of NGOs, as was seen most clearly in post-war Iraq, where NGOs were targeted and forded to leave, despite the generous aid contracts and potential boost to reputation available.
As shown above in the section on policymakers, the general public influence policymakers through public opinion and other forms of pressure. But the policymakers do not passively accept this influence as is. Conversely, policymakers will often take steps to lead, mould or manipulate public opinion in such a way that it will support or at least shift to a position closer to the policies preferred by the government of the day.
The reduction of interest in foreign affairs in general associated with the end of the Cold War gave Western governments more leeway to do so, although the rise in the perceived importance of terrorism has most likely reversed this trend. Politicians can influence public opinion by making statements or releasing information that may either raise the perceived importance of a particular issue, or divert attention from another.
They may also use public opinion polls in a way that support their position. Many Western governments have refused to engage in military interventions on the basis of lack of public support, for example, despite evidence of opposite trends in most polls.
The influences between policymakers and interest groups and corporations are also mutual. Politicians rely on election campaign contributions from both interest groups and corporations, and in return interest groups and corporations rely on politicians to support their interests. Policymakers can pass laws that regulate where and how corporations do business, and in extreme cases can put sanction regimes in place to prevent business activities and the remittance of funds to groups in conflicts zones.
Such regimes in Angola, for example, cut off the rebel group UNITA from support bases and contributed to its decline. Interest groups and corporations may, however, find ways to circumvent these restrictions. The UK private security firm, Sandline, was implicated in a scandal, for example, that involved supplying arms to the government of Sierra Leone against the provisions of UN Security Council sanctions.
Policymakers have a major influence on NGOs because they provide a large proportion of NGO funding. Government funding for NGO activities can become both a carrot and a stick. Particularly where Western governments have been belligerent parties in conflict (Kosovo. Afghanistan and Iraq, for example), these governments provide large amounts of aid through NGOs as a strategy to improve their image, justify the benefits of going to war, and repair the damage done.
Such governments even refer to NGOs in such activities as “force multipliers” –and “an important part of our combat team” (Smillie and Minear, 2004: 156). While many NGOs welcome the large amounts of funding, others hesitate to become involved as a partner to a belligerent. There is after? pressure by governments to accept funding in support of ‘their’ emergency, and future funding in other regions may be contingent upon it. The result is NGOs simply cannot sit out such an emergency, and become involved.
The media have a major influence on the general public. First and foremost, this is because the media are the prime (if not the only) source of information the general public have on foreign conflicts. How the public respond to conflict is often contingent on what information the media present to them, how often they present it, and in what way they package it. With 20 or 30 conflicts ongoing throughout the world, but only one or two being given significant coverage at any given time, coverage is so selective that “the media in effect create a disaster when they recognize it” (Cohen, 2001: 169).
By then covering the conflict on a daily basis, they increase public awareness on the conflict. This frequency, combined with packaging or framing the conflict in an emotive morality play format, considerably raises public response. On the other hand, when the media give little or no coverage to a conflict, or by packaging a conflict as a tribal clash that no one can do anything about, there is less likely to be a response. Even conflicts that have been ‘chosen’ by the media may fall away into obscurity when the media perceive ‘compassion fatigue’ among their audience.
Interest groups and corporations may also be affected by media coverage of conflicts in which they have an interest. Interest groups may be buoyed by coverage that supports their cause, or forced to make mitigating strategies when coverage is not in their favour.
The activities of corporations may also be affected because of media coverage that portrays their role in a negative light. The issue of blood diamonds is a case in point, where the diamond industry was forced to take action to regulate the trade in illicit diamonds not only because of the advocacy groups that had taken up the case, but also because of the media that was amplifying the potentially damaging advocacy activities of these groups.
As the policymakers have an influence on NGOs by enhancing the funding for high profile conflicts, so too is the media a major contributor in the ‘creation’ of high profile conflicts, and consequently, major funding opportunities for NGOs. The media is instrumental in presenting conflicts in such a way that generates public sympathy and therefore private donations for conflict situations.
The media not only assists NGOs in fundraising for certain conflicts, but also in enhancing their reputation and awareness among the public of their existence and their works. The media can even be the very catalyst for NGO formation. Amnesty International (AI) was formed after its founder read a newspaper article on jailed prisoners of conscience in Portugal. A television program about East Timor inspired a bus driver in Ireland to begin an influential support movement in his country for East Timor.
Academics influence the general public primarily because they write the history books that are used to teach children in primary and secondary schools, and they directly teach university students. Their recordings of history are also found in books on the shelves in family homes and in public libraries. Their analyses on conflict, international politics and current affairs are also sold in the bookstores.
This means that what they choose to write (or perhaps more importantly, what not to write) affects the awareness of the general public on the state of conflict in the world. Interest groups may also be affected by historical writings of their particular group. A greater focus on Africa by academics in history and current affairs, for example, may be beneficial for African-American interest groups in the USA.
Academics may also influence corporations and NGOs, by producing and supplying information and analyses countries and conflict situations. Corporations purchase information and analyses on business opportunities, as well as long-term trends, stability and security to guide their investments.
NGOs may hire consultants and experts for needs assessments, evaluations, and information on security. In conducting its mortality surveys in the DRC, for example, the IRC teamed up with the Burnet Institute in Australia to conduct the surveys. In these ways, academia can influence the public agenda.
Introduction The literature review is a crucial component of scholarly research, serving not only to… Read More
Teachers’ Level of Understanding of Inclusive Education on Their Efficacy in the Inclusive Early Childhood… Read More
Staffing is a fundamental aspect of organizational management that plays a critical role in determining… Read More
Curriculum and Syllabus Most often people tend to equate the word “syllabus” with Curriculum”. This… Read More
This blog post aims to explore the perspectives of various religious traditions on the experience… Read More
There are so many types of curricula. Understanding the different types of curricula is important… Read More
