Is Media Coverage A Sine Qua Non
for Conflict Prevention?

There may be a strong argument that media coverage is counterproductive for effective diplomacy aimed at conflict prevention or management. Too often during discussions or negotiations, the protagonists or delegations perform somewhat theatrically for the press corps, thereby apparently stiffening their positions and compounding the problems of mediation or confidence building.

In late 1995, one exceptional BBC TV documentary by Michael Ignatieff on the work of the UN secretary-general included a unique insight into the effectiveness of unseen diplomacy by the UN special representative in Burundi, Ould Abdullah. Abdullah's limited effectiveness was partly due to the absence of any media coverage that can inflame tensions and polarise positions rather than assist in conciliation.

Although journalists want a story, the wiser, more seasoned conflict journalists recognise that unseen mediation and diplomacy can play a more pivotal role than -- and even be complicated by -- public posturing to the media. Witness the frustrations of David Owen, Cyrus Vance, and others in the protracted Bosnian negotiations in Geneva, where the faction leaders indulged in public posturing at the microphones in the Palais des Nations before and after each session of "peace talks." 85

Ignatieff's film of Burundi also highlighted the limits and frustrations of quiet, unheralded, unobtrusive mediation. Therefore, rather than hindering mediation, it could also be argued that increased media coverage might have helped focus international concern on Burundi,86 thereby attaining a sustainable momentum and mediation-support mechanism. The contention is debatable and possibly hypothetical. Because of the international lack of interest in Burundi, the media coverage never happened.

Eventually Abdullah asked to be relieved of his position because of his despair at the lack of political support and resources for his work. In no way had the media put Burundi on the governmental radar screen, and by April 1996 the warning signals had apparently come full circle. It seemed to be the autumn of 1993 revisited.

Then, to the delight and surprise of many conflict analysts, some governments expressed concern and even tried to do more. In a move apparently at odds with clear international indifference towards Africa's festering conflicts,87 the U.S. government proposed a UN preventative force whose aim would be to stop Burundi from turning into another Rwanda- style mass genocide. Two months before the murders and coup that fleetingly put Burundi on the world's TV screens, U.S. ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright preemptively described Burundi as "a car driving in slow motion over a cliff."88 She chided France for vetoing a plan reportedly backed by President Clinton to prepare a UN rapid-intervention force for Burundi.

Even allowing for the complex political undercurrents between the U.S. and France, the prevention plan was unique and praiseworthy. Why the sudden U.S. interest to do in Burundi what it conspicuously refused to do in Rwanda in 1994? In no way can it be said that media coverage was the reason. Diplomacy was taking a lead politically. On Burundi's catastrophe the international print press and TV had been virtually silent, despite a virtually constant level of killings and the many warnings in NGO reports of increasing violence reminiscent of Rwanda before April 1994.

Again, no obvious cause and effect between media coverage and diplomatic action can be detected. In Burundi in early summer 1996, it was the opposite.

 


Previous chapter | Next chapter