The Somali, Libyan and Syrian Cases

Before delving much into the discussion, it is important to highlight what foreign policy entails.

Modelski (1962:6-7) defines foreign policy as: “The system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment.” From a general perspective, foreign policy is a set of rules and guidelines that guide states, regional or international organisations in their relations with each other. Does television imagery affect foreign policy formulation and implementation in any way? This section seeks to tackle this question by discussing the Somali, Libyan and Syrian scenarios.

Sharkey (1993) argues that television pictures “drive foreign policy.” In a bid to support such a stand point, Sharkey (1993) cites the example of the US intervention and pull-out of Somalia in 1992 and 1993 respectively. In light of the Somali case, both Perlmutter (2005) and Sharkey (1993) argue that the US intervened in Somalia because of televised pictures of starving children and pulled out because of images of dead US soldiers who were pulled on the streets of Mogadishu. Perlmutter (2005:118) dubs the Somali images: “Entrance Icons vs. Exit Icons.”

Therefore, it is important to note that images that sway foreign policy are usually associated with an iconic status, hence, Perlmutter’s (2005:118) “Entrance vs. Exit Icons” label. In light of the CNN effect and icons related to Somalia, Holmes (2010) observes that: “For a war that began with memorable images, it is both fitting and ironic that it ended because of another set of dramatic images.” Therefore, the US intervened and pulled out of Somalia due to television imagery which evoked feelings and caused public outcry in the US thereby forcing the Clinton administration to act on the situation.

Furthermore, Sharkey (1993) argues that that: “The photos from Somalia are...the ...example of how visual images can affect foreign policy” and adds that: “The photographs and the reactions they evoked sparked a nationwide debate about the political and ethical implications of the pictures and the media’s influence on foreign policy.” Correspondingly, Perlmutter

(1998:1) classifies such images as “icons of outrage.” A sift through Sharkey’s (1993) work reveals that images or pictures cause outcry on the part of the public and government officials which could lead to a seismic shift in foreign policy as evidenced by the Somali case. This in line with the dictates of the CNN effect. Holmes (2010) categorises iconic images into two categories: the famous and the infamous. The following is one of the “infamous” iconic images related to the Somali case study that is shown by Holmes (2010) which appeared on the CNN, among other international news channels.

Picture N

A US soldier’s dead body is dragged on the streets in Somalia in 1992 (Holmes, 2010).

Apart from the Somali case, Vilmar (2012) cites images of brutalised protesters during the Libyan revolution as having played a role in the US and its allies’ intervention in Libya in 2011. In relation to Libya and Somalia and the role of the pictures thereof, Vilmar (2012) cites the “CNN effect” as an important element to that regard. What is important to highlight is that the “CNN effect” relies heavily on the picture as Vilmer (2012) notes. Another case where the impact of pictures and the CNN effect was at play is when the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons against women and children in April 2017. At least 80 people were killed and the images of their horrific dead bodies where broadcast on international media platforms and attracted international condemnation and action specifically from the US. In light of the same incident, The Washington Post (2017 April 7) notes that: “This week, it was the images- gruesome photos of a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians — that moved

Trump, pushing the president, who ran on an “America first” platform of non-intervention, to authorize the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian targets Thursday night.” This is arguably one of the notable examples of the impact of pictures on policymaking.

Furthermore, another picture which appeared in the international media and which caused a lot of public outcry even amongst world leaders, including in the US, is the picture of a Syrian toddler named Alan Kurdi who drowned in Turkey in September 2015. The picture, which went viral, was shown on CNN (2015 September 12), among numerous television news stations. After seeing the picture, the then US President, Barrack Obama, called for urgent action in dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis. CNN (2015 September 12) reported that:

“President Barack Obama said Friday that the image of a lifeless toddler who washed ashore on a Turkish beach after he and his family fled Syria should prompt action from the rest of the world, including the United States.” By the same token, “Obama said every country needed to do more to help alleviate the crisis, and that the United States would accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year. He also said the U.S. would try to eliminate some bureaucratic hurdles toward entering the country” (CNN, September 12). This incident shows a clear relationship between the impact of the mentioned televised picture and the US foreign policy trajectory in Syria, specifically in relation to the refugee crisis. Below is the picture of Alan Kurdi’s lifeless body which evoked public outcry around the globe.

Picture O

Allan Kurd on the shores of Turkey after his death on 2 September 2015. He died when he and his family were fleeing the Syrian Civil War (CNN (2015) /Nilufer Demir).

According to some scholars, the effect of pictures and the resultant action thereof (CNN effect) varies. In the same vein, Robison in Vilmer (2012) proposes the “strong,” “weak” and “Zero effect” model as an instrument of gauging the CNN effect. Accordingly, the “strong effect” is related to television imagery that causes public outcry and possibly followed by concrete political action like the Somali case in the early 1990s. The “weak effect” scenario relates to those cases which raise relative public outcry and relative action. However, Robinson in Vilmer (2012) argues that there is no “zero effect” scenario since all images are associated with effects albeit in varying degrees. However, the Rwandan Genocide case study runs contrary to the dictates of the “strong effect” argument. For instance, Havens (2001) notes that: “a flood of images of human suffering did not change US policy, providing a limit case of television’s diplomatic influence. Here, the horrific images of machete-hacked bodies did not sway public opinion...” Therefore, the Rwandan scenario is not in line with the dictums of the CNN effect in general and the “strong effect” argument in particular. What about television imagery depicting Zimbabwe’s Crisis? Did it change the country’s relationship trajectory with the EU?

The next chapter tackles this question from the point of view of the respondents.