Historical frames and the politics of humanitarian intervention: from Ethiopia, Somalia to Rwanda

Abstract

This article argues that historical frames we often find in news media discourse can skew the way we perceive distant wars, and that this can have a knock-on effect on international humanitarian response within a cosmopolitan framework of global justice. Drawing on an empirical exploration of recent 'humanitarian interventions' in Ethiopia, Somalia and Rwanda, the article shows how historical frames largely reinforced the elite-dominated news frames of 'their crisis', and 'not ours', which explains the delayed international intervention to end it. I conclude that the non-intervention, or delayed intervention, of the international community on humanitarian grounds to end these crises was informed more by historical empathy/distance frames than empathy/critical frames in the mainstream Western news media discourse.

Cry Havoc: Rhetorical Mobilization and Foreign Policy Decision Making During War-threatening Crises

“…While frames do not cause political outcomes, they do "have real effects in the world" by placing "boundaries around what can meaningfully be said and understood" about a given event or situation (Hodges 2011, 5). In an international relations context, scholars have turned to frame analysis to explain the influence of international organizations (Barnett & Finnemore 2004), nuclear strategies (Eden 2004), the mutual influence of news media and foreign policy decision makers (Entman 2004), human rights advocacy (Keck & Sikkink 1998), and humanitarian intervention (Shaw 2007). …”