Afghanistan’s Altercation: Media influence in Western conflict interventions

(1)

1

By Nicole Dirksen

Radboud University Nijmegen

Master's programme in Human Geography

Conflicts, Territories and Identities

AFGHANISTAN’S ALTERCATION

(2)

(3)

3

Abstract

Summary in English

Is the pen still mightier than the sword in the globalised era of mass communication? To find an answer to this question this thesis looks into the critical decision-making process of international military interventions. The case analysed is the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan. The decision-making processes from 2013 until 2018 of two contributing nations, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, are analysed. The dynamics of the interrelationship between the policy-maker, the media and the conflict context itself are thoroughly examined and the findings reflect on classical media theories. In the end it is concluded that media did not have a direct influence on the policy-making process, but nonetheless several findings were made about the relationship between media and policy-makers. Moreover, several classical views on media and media influence could not be confirmed in this research. On the contrary, some key assumptions on media coverage in a conflict context did not fit with the reality in Afghanistan. It also became apparent that there were differences between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Though relatively similar in culture and democratic traditions, their unique aspects in decision-making and media traditions did have their impact on the policy process. This research gives new insight in many aspects of the complicated game between media, conflict and politics. Yet, in the end it must be concluded that sword nor pen won the battle in Afghanistan.

Samenvatting in het Nederlands

Is de pen nog steeds machtiger dan het zwaard in een wereld van globalisering en massacommunicatie? Om deze vraag te beantwoorden kijkt dit onderzoek naar het kritieke besluitvormingsproces inzake internationale militaire interventies. De case die hier wordt geanalyseerd is de Resolute Support missie in Afghanistan. De besluitvormingsprocessen tussen 2013 en 2018 van twee deelnemende staten, Nederland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk, zijn geanalyseerd. De onderlinge dynamiek van de beleidsmaker, de media en de conflictcontext worden grondig bestudeerd en de bevindingen reflecteren op de klassieke mediatheorieën. Uiteindelijk bleek het dat media geen directe invloed heeft uitgeoefend op het besluitvormingsproces. Desondanks zijn er verschillende bevindingen over de relatie tussen de media en de beleidsmaker. Daarbij werden sommige klassieke aannames over media en media-invloed niet bevestigd in de data. Sterker nog, sommige basisveronderstellingen over mediaberichtgeving in een conflictcontext kwamen niet overeen met de werkelijkheid van Afghanistan. Daarbij waren er verschillen tussen Nederland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Hoewel deze landen vergelijkbaar zijn wat betreft cultuur en bestuurlijke tradities, hebben hun eigen unieke ontwikkelingen op het gebied van besluitvorming en mediatradities impact op het besluitvormingsproces. Samenvattend geeft dit onderzoek nieuwe inzichten in verschillende aspecten van het gecompliceerde spel tussen media, conflict en politiek. Desalniettemin, uiteindelijk moet worden geconcludeerd dat het zwaard, noch de pen, de veldslag van Afghanistan heeft gewonnen.

(4)

4

Acknowledgements

I started my journey in Conflict Studies without actually realising it. It started when I was still studying Public Administration and had chosen several extra courses, which turned out to be all part of the dialogue about conflict and peace. It started when I chose to study in South Africa, witnessed the scars, injuries, and wounds this land still suffered from its violent past. It started when our prime minister declared we were at war with ISIS after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It started when I became consciously aware of the two-minute silence at the fourth of May every year. It started at many points, and will continue even after I receive my degree.

While I grew up in a time of peace and freedom, a time of open borders and unlimited opportunities, the scars of the past are still visible. Unfortunately, for many of my generation, the notion of conflict is not a yearly moment of remembrance. People my age born and raised in Afghanistan have not known a stable and positive peace. While I won’t be able to change that here, I do want to use this opportunity to address how lucky we are to grow up without this fear. To take freedom and peace for granted, or at least for now. We must never forget what we have and how we got it. This is why I also want to use this opportunity to acknowledge how lucky I have been with the people supporting me through every step of my way. Every public servant and soldier that took the time to share their insights in the incredible complex dynamics of the policy process of military operations has shown me ever more so-called ‘unknown unknowns’ of a student seeing a conflict only through her books. Nevertheless, of every insight I received, most gratitude goes to my supervisor dr. H.W. Bomert. While I was being occupied with my internship abroad and took my fair share doing anything but working on my thesis, he replied rapidly to any question I had. Taking time and effort to help me cut through a maze of vague ideas and incomprehensible chapters with his honest opinions. Yet giving me my space to learn and enjoy my time at the PR OECD as well. I am ever grateful to his swift and lasting support through this whole process. Last but not least, I want to thank my family and partner, as they might not always have had the vaguest clue of which tiresome theory I was rambling on about, but supported me with all their positivity anyways. Because of their support, help and encouragement I can present you the research laying before you.

Nicole Dirksen 24 March 2019

(5)

5

List of abbreviations

ANSF Afghan National Security Forces

ANDSF Afghan National Defence and Security Forces

BZ Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) CDS Commandant der Strijdkrachten (Chief of Defence)

Def Ministerie van Defensie (Ministry of Defence) DFID Department for International Development

DGCB Directorate-General for Consular Affairs and Operational Management DGIS The Directorate-General for International Cooperation

DGPZ Directorate-General for Political Affairs

ExCo Executive Committee

EAPC Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council

HoC House of Commons

HoR House of Representatives

ISAF International Security Assistance Force

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom

MIVD Militaire Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (Military Intelligence and Security Service)

MOD Ministry of Defence

MP Member of Parliament

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NED Kingdom of the Netherlands

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

QCA Qualitative Content Analysis

(8)

8

List of maps, tables, and figures

Maps

Map 1: The Silk Road p. 43

Map 2: Afghanistan and Pakistan Ethnic Groups p. 44

Map 3: ISAF mission outlay p. 49

Map 4: Resolute Support mission outlay p. 50

Map 5: Combined map of Afghanistan p. 52

Tables

Table 1: General influence of political elites during the phases p. 20 of the military policy-making process

Table 2: Effects of policy uncertainty and elite dissensus on policy p. 27 Table 3: General influence during the phases of the military policy-making p. 35

process

Table 4: Total amount of media reports data gathered p. 39

Table 5: Total amount of usable media data p. 40

Table 6: Total amount of governmental data p. 40

Table 7: Human conditions in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2017 p. 51

Table 8: Analysis overview p. 53

Table 9: Media influence in the United Kingdom p. 68

(9)

9

Figures

Figure 1: The policy cycle p. 16

Figure 2: Necessary conditions for media influence on the policy-making process p. 28

Figure 3: CNN-Effect p. 30

Figure 4: Islamist Militancy, c. 2006 p. 47

Figure 5: Total fatalities in Afghanistan by Western Coalition soldiers p. 48 Figure 6: National troops contributing to the Resolute Support mission p. 66

Figure 7: Comparing variables p. 71

Figure 8: Comparing papers p. 72

Figure 9: Coverage and policy decisions p. 73

Figure 10: UK Coverage and casualties p. 74

(10)

10

Chapter 1. Introduction

Afghanistan has known a violent past, which did not change with the start of the new millennium. The infamous 9/11 disaster preluded the era of the War on Terror and shaped the world as we know it today. Yet, various states and intergovernmental organisations have initiated multiple missions, trying to restore and rebuild peace in Afghanistan. The latest international mission aims to advise and train the security forces of an independent democratic Afghanistan. This mission, Resolute Support, has been in place since 2015 (Ministerie van Defensie, 2015). Though NATO-led, the contributions to this mission rest on the shoulders of various sovereign nations. These all contribute the amount of aid as they see fit within the context of their own political system, interests and developments. While many question the results of international interventions for a variety of moral and practical reasons, I particularly find it interesting to look into the development of policies of individual nations in combined interventions of the global community. The new millennium did not only introduce the War on Terror, but also a rapid change of technological developments; it created the possibility to give and find information all around the globe. Media and policy-making are closely linked, as explained by the so-called ‘CNN effect’; media coverage not only being influenced by policy-making, but also the other way around. This connection can seriously influence policy-making through military interventions (Livingston, 1997). Unfortunately, this influence does not necessarily result in resolute policy-making based on an increase of information. Evidence shows that media might even have a negative effect on policy-making processes by focussing on particular ‘interesting’ aspects of the conflict, asking for immediate attention and not on the quality or long-term necessities (Jakobsen, 2000). Over the years media coverage of conflict has increased and has found multiple ways to find its audience. The increasing use of internet as a news source is a new phenomenon, not encountered in history before (McCombs & Shaw, 1972); nowadays mass media increasingly have the opportunity to set the agenda, influencing the salience of attitudes toward political issues. This connection between a conflict situation, national policy-making and media, might explain the shaping of international interventions even when certain actions do not necessarily seem logical. But how do these three concepts of conflict, policy-making and media relate to each other? Do they mutually influence each other when examining the case of Afghanistan? By analysing the developments of the conflict context, media coverage, shaping of policy and the actions of national political elites within the Resolute Support mission, we might find a pattern between these concepts and give insight in the decision-making process of a nation dealing with another nation’s conflict situation.

1.1 Scientific relevance

This research provides knowledge and insights about influencing factors of national policy-making in an international conflict context. The influence of mass media on military interventions has been researched before and a connection has been established. Yet, these theories came to be before the year 2000. Mass media has developed since and communication platforms have rapidly grown. The part mass media plays in policy-making might change with these developments. This research looks into the critical making process; high-stakes decisions made by policy-makers concerned with (the aftermath of) a crisis, safety or security issue (Boin et al., 2010). The outcome of the critical policy-making process could be lifesaving or life-threatening for the civilians involved. Since military intervention is a type of critical policy-making, yet might be influenced by an undemocratic power, which is difficult to appoint checks and balances to, it is worth researching its mechanisms for two reasons. Firstly, the scientific relevance. During the

(11)

11

previous decennia, the academic debate of mass media influence on policy-making and the public opinion has been lively, especially considering the rise of the internet as a worldwide communication platform. What this influence actually means – does it become easier to steer the policy-makers in a certain direction with an increase in communication platforms? – is more difficult to pin down, however. The academic debate involving its implications has not come to a conclusion yet. It is very well possible that this differs from nation to nation, or depends on the type of policy or even type of media. The how and the why of media influence has also sparked different theories. Yet, most of these, especially the evidence used to develop measuring models, is based on the system of the United States of America (Jakobsen, 1996; Livingston, 1997; Robinson, 2001). It might very well be that another political system and another way of policy-making is influenced differently. This is why this research compares the critical policy-policy-making processes of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

The scientific relevance is based on various reasons. The first is that with the rapid development of mass media reach, it is evidently necessary to gain more knowledge of its influence in this day and age. The second reason is that there is no specific knowledge of mass media influence on critical policy-making in different political systems. The third is that this research will look into the specific case of Afghanistan, a case in which the United Kingdom and the Netherlands both participate. To apply the theories of mass media influence on policy-making in a conflict case might give us more insight in the mechanisms of this influence in critical policy-making.

1.2 Societal relevance

Not only scientifically, but also societally this research is of relevance. Considering the many critical responses from academics directed at peace- and state-building missions in post-conflict settings, it is necessary to know why these policies do not always establish their intended effects. Media plays a role, especially during the first phase of the policy cycle; the decision-making phase. This phase consists of agenda-making, policy preparation and policy decision-making. To phrase it differently, media influences which topics are subjected to the policy-making process and are also able to influence the approach and definition of the problem (Hoogerwerf & Herweijer, 2008). How influential the role of media is in the decision-making processes of critical policy-making in different nations is unknown. Yet, we do know that the critical decision-making process of these individual nations results in global interventions in (post-) conflict cases. National media sources are therefore part of global interventions and might (partly) explain why international interventions do or do not reach their full potential. As shown by the case of Afghanistan, the interventions have not yet established a positive peace (Smith, 2017; Oxfam, 2018). One can critically reflect on the approaches chosen, on liberal values that arguably do not fit well with the state intervened (Van Leeuwen, Verkoren & Boedeltje, 2012), the state intervened is not interested in stabilising the situation (Verkoren & Kamphuis, 2013) or question the motivations of the participants altogether (Chandler, 2006; Chandler, 2010). Yet, regardless if these are the main reasons, the policy-making process, the decisions made and the motivations to intervene are still established during this first phase wherein media have an unambiguous influence. A power that is hard to pin down and difficult to apply a mechanism of checks and balances to without risking the dangers of censorship. Yet, in order to improve global interventions in post-conflict territories, one ought to start understanding how these policies came to be in the first place. Media contains one piece of this puzzle. How big this piece is in different historical societal systems, I try to discover in this research.

(12)

12

1.3 Research objective

The aim of the research is to examine the connection between the policy made and the media coverage within the context of a conflict. The main question of this research is therefore: To what

extent do national media influence national policy-making in international conflict cases?

Considering that this research compares multiple variables, two different nations and different types of media outlets, it is necessary to separate the main question into several theoretical and empirical sub-questions:

1.3.1 Theoretical sub-questions

The theoretical sub-questions are used to build the theoretical framework of the thesis; to grasp the variables used and to define the concepts that will be measured in the analysis. The theoretical sub-questions focus on the three key-concepts of this research: policy-makers, conflict context, and media influence.

1. How is policy developed in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands?

The first thing we have to do is to understand the systems that are analysed in this research. Even though the United Kingdom and the Netherlands both have a parliamentary representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, their decision-making processes differ. Not only the formal process as such, but also the political parties creating the policies arose from a nation-specific socio-historical context (Tilly, 1985). It is therefore necessary to describe the policy process for both nations and point out the (subtle) differences between them.

2. How can international military interventions effect a post-conflict situation?

To understand the gravity of the results of the policy-making process, it is necessary to understand what types of international military interventions are used and what they contain. The academic discussion on whether international military interventions can or will likely not improve the situation at hand, will be observed in this theoretical sub-question.

3. What does media influence imply in the policy-making process?

Media have a role in the policy-making process. But where in this process does the true potential of media influence lay? This question will examine the role of media as a policy-making actor in the policy cycle and under what conditions media have the possibility to influence policy. Moreover, it will be described how media can influence and describe the various variables necessary to effectively influence policy. It will also describe the possible dangers of media influence and the theoretical knowledge we already have about the relationship between political elites and media coverage.

1.3.2 Empirical sub-questions

The empirical sub-questions provide structure to the analysis of the thesis. Based on the knowledge gained in the theoretical sub-questions, these questions examine the different variables in the Resolute Support mission and eventually answer the main question of this thesis.

(13)

13

1. How did the context of the conflict, the media coverage and the policy-making develop?

The first empirical sub-question will analyse the different developments of the conflict context, the policy-making and the media coverage of the Resolute Support mission separately in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. By making the movements of these variables clear in both nations, it is possible to analyse the different actions and compare possible patterns of these movements to each other.

2. Did the media influence policy in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands?

As will be explained in the theoretical sub-questions, certain variables need to be in place for the media to influence policy. In this sub-question it will be examined, based on the findings of the first empirical sub-question, if these conditions are in place and if the media showed any signs of actively wanting to influence the policy. Or there might be another explanation for the movement of media coverage in the specific case.

3. Is there a difference between coverage and political positions in the United Kingdom and the

Netherlands?

The next step in the analysis is to compare the findings to each other. It is possible that the policy-makers responded differently to the conflict context or the media coverage in the United Kingdom compared to responses from policy-makers in the Netherlands. If this is the case, it is interesting to look into possible explanations for this phenomenon. If this is not the case and policy-makers reacted the same to comparable media coverage of the conflict context, there is arguably a pattern discovered which might answer the main question of the research.

1.4 Reading guide

This research starts with an extensive theoretical framework. As various academic disciplines are combined in this research, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the different theoretical approaches. Additionally, a conceptual model explaining the relationship between the conflict context, media coverage and policy-makers based on the theoretical foundations accompanies the theoretical framework. In this theoretical chapter the three theoretical sub-questions are guiding the reader. Chapter 3 explains the methodology of this research. The analysis is based on the Qualitative Content Analysis and all the data is gathered through analysing documents. This analysis is based on the principles as described in the codebook (Appendix B). This chapter also includes the case and data selection. Chapter 4 describes the conflict case. The recent history of Afghanistan and the conflict developments are examined and paint a clearer picture of the context in which this research has been executed. After this, Chapter 5 starts with the first part of the analysis. The findings of the Qualitative Content Analysis are presented in the content analysis and divided by year and by variable. In the conclusion of this chapter the first two empirical sub-questions are answered. It also reflects on the theoretical knowledge and compares it to the findings as to find an explanation for the data results. The second part of the analysis is done in the comparative analysis in Chapter 6. This chapter looks into the differences between the media coverage in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. It also reflects on the theoretical knowledge as to why media report on the conflict in Afghanistan. Finally, the last chapter answers the main question of the research.

(14)

14

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework

To start our journey into media influence on the policy-making process, it is important to elaborate on the existing assumptions of previous research. The three main components in this research are policy-makers, conflict context and media influence, all of which have been thoroughly examined in the past. The existing theories will therefore help to improve our understanding of these concepts and eventually lead to a theoretical relationship between them. Starting with the descriptions of policy-makers in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Next, the importance of the relationship between this policy and its effects on the conflict context is debated. The third section deals with media influence and its relationship with the previous variables. This chapter ends with the basic assumptions of this research and the conceptual framework.

2.1 The policy-maker

In this research the policy-making process of two nations is compared. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the specifics of the policy-making process of each. The policy-making process of most Western states is quite similar, as they are all representative democracies. The citizens of the nation-state therefore (indirectly) choose the makers. Looking more specific at the policy-making process of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, one will notice a specific element for these two nations. Both are a monarchy, making either state a parliamentary representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Yet, there are also differences between the policy processes in these two nations. To classify a system by these two elements would not do justice to its user, as a regime never fits neatly in a categorised box (Huntington, 1991). Though similar, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands have created their own system with unique features based of different socio-historical developments (Tilly, 1985). This section therefore elaborates upon both systems and distinguishes the political elites relevant for the military policy-making process in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, respectively.

Firstly, the key concepts concerning policy-making are analysed as well as the policy cycle applicable for both systems. This is followed by the policy-making process in the United Kingdom, including a broad sketch of its relevant history and political parties. Thirdly, the Netherlands will be examined similarly. Combined these descriptions will answer the first theoretical sub-question: How does policy develop in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands?

2.1.1 Key concepts of policy-making

Before the two systems are compared, it is necessary to elaborate upon a few key concepts concerning policy-making. Every society has a particular government style, which relates to its society and fluctuates over time with this society. Government is therefore merely a reflection of the values of its environment (Raadschelders, 2003). However, these key concepts are applicable two both nations, as they do share a similar regime type.

The first concept is politics. A common understanding of politics is “the activity or process by which groups reach and enforce binding decisions affecting the collectivity as a whole” (Hague & Harrop, 2010, p. 4). Politics is a broad concept and is performed regardless of the political nature of a state. It is a collective activity within or between groups, in which decisions are made on matters affecting these groups. The decisions made in this process, the political decisions, are

(15)

15

enforced on the group as a whole and are binding the members of the group to the decisions made. The making of these political decisions, the definition of the problem until the actual implementation of the policy, is called the policy-making process, commonly defined as “the process in which it is decided whether or not demands and support will be translated to governmental policies” (Hoogerwerf & Herweijer, 2008, p. 25).

Policy-making often takes place according to a certain pattern, commonly known as the policy cycle. Many authors have designed a systematic display of the policy-making process. These cycles all display some similar features, yet it is necessary for this research to choose one particular conceptualisation. Arguably, the policy cycle of Hoogerwerf and Herweijer is best qualified, since it is applicable to both cases and illustrates the decision-making process from the conceptualisation of the problem until the feedback phase.

The six phases of the policy cycle (Hoogerwerf & Herweijer, 2008, p. 25)

1. Agenda-setting phase

In this phase, problems in society can be put on the political agenda. Addressing a problem can be done by members of society itself. Researchers, journalists or activists can bring certain problems to the attention of the policy-makers.

2. Policy preparation phase

Data will be collected and analysed by the policy-makers. Defining the problem, its causes and solutions are important assets in this phase that will steer the outcome of the final decision.

3. Policy decision phase

Decisions on how to approach the defined problem are made. Specifying the goal, the instruments and the time span of the policy is done by the political elites during this phase. 4. Policy implementation phase

This phase formally implements the policy. All the instruments supposedly necessary to perform the task are set in place.

5. Policy enforcement phase

This phase enforces the task in practice. Upholding and maintaining the policy is a key asset of this phase.

6. Policy evaluation phase

The policy, the process and its effects will be evaluated and based on the evaluation the policy might need some correction or perhaps be terminated.

Different actors have different roles within these various phases. An external actor like the media, a lobby group or other organisations can influence the cycle in all stages, formally as well as informally, although they do have different objectives during the different phases. Media have an important role to play, especially in the agenda-setting phase. They provide a platform for groups that want to reach this agenda-setting phase. Traditionally, media are seen as the gatekeepers of this phase. Of course, it is possible to offer these platforms also during other phases. In the preparation phase, for example, it is still possible to steer the public opinion in a certain direction, address other causes and define the problem from a different perspective. Yet, the later this is done in the process, the less likely (theoretically) the policy definition will change. Policy-makers normally have the most influence during the third, fourth and fifth phase. In the sixth phase, it is again more likely that non-political elites influence the phase, although this influence will more likely focus on the performance of the policy and not define the policy right away. Nevertheless,

(16)

16 Phase 1 Agenda-setting Phase 2 Policy preparation Phase 3 Policy decision Phase 4 Policy implementation Phase 5 Policy enforcement Phase 6 Policy evaluation

the process is a cycle and the outcome of the sixth phase is likely to define the first phase of further policy within the same domain. This continuation of policy development is therefore best to be presented in a cycle, as the figure below shows.

Figure 1: The policy cycle

The formal decisions made within this process are made by the government of the nation, “institutions responsible for making collective decisions for society” (Hague & Harrop, 2010, p. 5). Government is a broad concept, as it can include different branches, types and levels of government. Some would say that government is inherent to society, as it is as old as the human race (Raadschelders, 2003). Yet, in this research the term government only applies to the highest level of political appointment as the arena for resolving political issues (Hague & Harrop, 2010). The individuals belonging to these levels of government are defined as political elites. These political elites are in theory broadly defined as, for example, prime ministers, members of the cabinet, monarchs, ruling parties and opposition parties (Robinson, 2001). However, taking the analysed nations and their respective decision-making traditions into account, it would be most appropriate to define the Members of Parliament as the political elites. Moreover, in this research political elites and policy-makers are used as synonymous.

Influence and authority are essential characteristics in this research; it is the ‘currency’ with which political decisions are made within the different political arenas. Influence is a key political resource which enforces political decisions. Although influence is an ambiguous notion with many possible conceptualisations, this research uses the broad definition of Hague and Harrop, being “the capacity to bring about intended effects” (2010, p. 10). Influence of the government is based on authority. Authority narrows down the concept of influence. Whereas influence gives someone the power to act, authority is about the right to act. As Weber notes, there are several kinds of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational authority. The authority of the government is based on the legal-rational classification, while arguably the power of the ruling monarch in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom is based on traditional authority. This authority formalizes the influence or power of the one acting accordingly (Weber, 1922). The possibility for the media to act by influencing the decision-making process of the political elites, is not based on its formal authority. This raises some questions about the legitimacy and desirability of media influence on the process altogether, as will be addressed in Section 2.3.4.

(17)

17

2.1.2 The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, formally the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, can be classified as a liberal democracy with a largely ceremonial monarchy. It comprises Great Britain, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Though all separate entities, they do also share a centralised government. The House of Commons and the House of Lords fulfil the legislative function. The House of Commons is elected by the single-member plurality method, whereas the House of Lords is appointed. The House of Commons chooses the prime minister. Normally this is the political leader of the party with the most seats in the House. The prime minister chooses the Cabinet, the executive power and the top decision-ratifying body. The prime minister has the power to select and dismiss Cabinet members.

The political landscape of the United Kingdom has seen some changes during the past decennia. At the beginning of the century, although multiple small parties took part in the elections, the competition for the prime minister position was essentially between two parties: The Conservative party and the Labour party. Recently, in 2010, the centre-left Liberal Democrats have changed this landscape (Hague & Harrop, 2010). Another major change deals with its relationship with the European Union, in which the United Kingdom always has had some special position. The referendum of 2016 revoking its EU membership resulted in turbulent political times which have not stabilised yet. Nevertheless, while the members with the legal-rational authority might have changed over time, the traditional authority has not. Queen Elizabeth, the monarch of the United Kingdom, has reigned for over 75 years. Though her powers are mostly ceremonial, Her Majesty does need to formally approve the policy as proposed by the policy-makers (Government Digital Service, n.d.A).

Military policy-making process

The previous paragraphs broadly explain how in general policy is made. Yet, within the policy-making process concerning critical decisions about security and defence policies, it is important to know by whom and how exactly policy is made regarding these matters. In a post-conflict intervention, there is often a collaboration between the ministerial department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of International Development and the Ministry of Defence. The Department for International Development (DFID) usually does providing aid and organisation around development projects (Department for International Development, 2014):

“The DFID leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We are tackling the global challenges of our time including poverty and disease, mass migration, insecurity and conflict. Our work is building a safer, healthier, more prosperous world for people in developing countries and in the UK too.” (Government Digital Service, n.d.C)

DFID is represented in the cabinet by the Secretary of State for International Development. However, when military forces are sent abroad, the DFID does not operate alone. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for the operation. The official Defence motto is: “To defend the United Kingdom and its interests, strengthen international peace and stability, and act as a force for good in the world.” (Government Digital Service, n.d.B). The Ministry of Defence concerns itself with all the military actions of the United Kingdom. As summed up by the Ministry of Defence itself:

(18)

18

“We protect the security, independence and interests of our country at home and abroad. We work with our allies and partners whenever possible. Our aim is to ensure that the armed forces have the training, equipment and support necessary for their work, and that we keep within budget.” (Government Digital Service, n.d.B)

The execution of these responsibilities by the Ministry of Defence takes place through three institutional bodies: The Defence Board, the Defence Council, and the Executive Committee. As (the change of) a bill is proposed, Parliament has the opportunity to debate the matter and cast votes to agree or disagree. Normally, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords need to agree on bills and possible changes of the proposal by either party. In the case of military interventions, the Government decides to participate or not. However, Parliament does annually approve the budgets and therefore decides on the resources of the Ministry of Defence. Parliament has moreover the task to control the Government by the regularly planned Parliamentary Questions. The House of Commons has the power to withdraw its confidence in the Government as a whole, possibly resulting in new elections (United Kingdom Parliament, n.d.).

To summarise, the political elites included in the military policy-making in the United Kingdom are the prime minister and his/her Cabinet, the members of Parliament, and the various members of the Defence Board, the Defence Council and the Executive Committee. Even though the Queen has a formal role in this process, her position is mostly seen to be symbolic and will therefore not be considered as a formal actor in the process.

2.1.3 The Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten, headed by the reigning monarch, since 2013 King Willem-Alexander. However, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten do not fulfil a relevant role as actor. Even though these entities do have their own parliament, they do not influence the international military interventions of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In this research, the government of the Netherlands therefore is synonymous with the policy-makers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The government in the Netherlands consists of the King and his ministers. The kingship has become, like in the United Kingdom, mostly a symbolic function. Unlike the United Kingdom however, the Netherlands does not have a history of a two-party system. Never has one party managed to gain the majority of the votes and therefore it has always been necessary to form a coalition government of at least two parties. Like in the United Kingdom, the prime minister is normally the leader of the party with the most votes (Breeman, Van Noort, Rutgers, 2012). Another common feature is the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) and the Senate (Eerste Kamer), which can to some extent be compared to the House of Commons and the House of Lords in tasks and influence. (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, n.d.). Similarly, during the duration of the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, elections have been held and the political balance has shifted. However, the position of the prime minister has not changed to another political leader and in general the political climate has been relatively stable, as it has been the first time in almost two decades a cabinet did not have to end its reign before the end of its official four-year term.

(19)

19

Military policy-making process

Military interventions are normally the territory of the Ministry of Defence (Ministerie van Defensie, Def.) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, BZ), the latter being also important in the military policy-making process. It provides the political context of the intervention by consulting, negotiating, advising and informing the Dutch political elites and representing their interests abroad:

“The Netherlands has close links with the world around us. This brings us benefits, including economic prosperity, but also involves risks. Because what happens far away – like terrorism, refugee flows and climate change – often affects us at home too. Through international cooperation we can tackle such problems and strengthen our economy.” (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, 2018)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is tasked with a broad range of duties. For this research, only a specific part of this Ministry is of interest. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the implementation of governmental policies and cooperates with the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. BZ is the soft power in interventions abroad, relying on diplomatic expertise. However, a military operation will not take place without the Ministry of Defence. Whereas BZ has relative low participation in the enforcement phase, mainly monitoring and informing, Defence plays a prominent role in the practical execution of the policy. The Ministry of Defence’s vision of its task is described as:

“We are the Ministry of Defence. We are indispensable in a world of turmoil. We protect all that we

as a nation cherish. We fight for a world of freedom and security, because we believe that everyone has the right to live in such a world. This is our mission, and it’s also the reason we participate in missions.’’(Ministerie van Defensie, 2016)

The Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State of Defence are in charge of the ministry. They

are directly supported in their tasks by, amongst others, the Commandant der Strijdkrachten (CDS) (Breeman, Van Noort, Rutgers, 2012). When the cabinet decides to use military force, it is required by the Dutch Constitution to inform the members of parliament by a so-called ‘Art. 100 letter’ of this decision. Interestingly, the House of Representatives does not have to vote on this policy (Art. 100 GW). This might have some impact on its influence on the policy-making process. However, in practice the House of Representatives does debate the matter and (symbolically) agrees to interventions. While it is not formally needed to approve foreign intervention, it is common to do so and the approval of the House of Representatives is a political necessity for the intervention in practice.

To recap, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have to a great extent comparable political elite participating in the policy-making process. The political elites concerning military policy-making in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are the prime minister and the cabinet, the members of parliament, top civil servants and the CDS. The king has mainly a symbolic function and will therefore not be classified as a political elite in the Dutch policy-making process.

(20)

20

2.1.4 Conclusion

The United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands share some similarities in the policy-making process and the political elites. However, there are some nuances in their respective roles. Of course, the political influence in a phase might fluctuate depending on numerous factors, like the political environment, the intervention, or even finances. Yet, the possibilities to influence are more likely to surface in specific phases. This section has provided insights in the authority of political elites to formally influence the military policy-making process of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. However, anyone with the slightest insight in the policy-making process can see that the table beneath is limited. As Hoogerwerf and Herweijer address, the policy-making process is a constant changing process and their actors are dynamically moving from one phase to another. This table shows only the most likely places where the official political powers have formal influence. Though examining relatively transparent nations, it is impossible to map all the informal streams of power at play. Moreover, the ministers leading the ministries are also members of the Cabinet. This means that if a ministry has influence in a phase, the Cabinet has direct and indirect influence as well. Another remark is that in the UK, the policy-makers have a majority among the members who represent the electorate, and the policy-making process is therefore by some seen as an elective dictatorship. In the Netherlands, there is not one single party that has the majority. Though in the Netherlands the representing members of the electorate do not have formal voting rights in the military intervention. Yet, the likeliness of a military intervention without the approval of the House of Representatives is virtually non-existent.

Table 1: General influence of political elites during the phases of the military policy-making process

Phases Main task Political elites

United

Kingdom The Netherlands

1. Agenda-setting Problems in society can be put on the political agenda in this phase. Addressing the problem can be done by members of society itself. Researchers, journalists or activists can bring certain problems to the attention of the policy-makers Cabinet Parliament MOD Cabinet Parliament BZ Def. 2. Policy

preparation Data will be collected and analysed by the policy-makers. Defining the problem, its causes and its solutions are important assets in this phase that will steer the outcome of the final decision

DFID

MOD BZ Def.

3. Policy decision Decisions on how to approach the defined problem are made. Specifying the goal, the instruments and the time span of the policy is done by the political elites in this phase Cabinet Parliament DFID MOD Cabinet Parliament BZ Def. 4. Policy

implementation This phase executes the formerly made decisions in practice DFID MOD BZ Def.

5. Policy

enforcement The policy as implemented needs to be enforced and made sure to be upheld DFID _MOD Def.

6. Policy

evaluation The policy, the process and its effects will be evaluated and based on the evaluation the policy might need some correction or perhaps be concluded.

Parliament DFID MOD Parliament BZ Def.

(21)

21

2.2 The conflict context

The previous section looked into the making of military policy, this section reflects upon the

international context. This part looks specifically into the meaning of ‘conflict context’. This part

of the theory will help in broadening the understanding of the complexity of an international military intervention and explain the overall debate on it. After this, the second theoretical question is answered: How can international military interventions effect a post-conflict situation?

Conflict is a by definition a broad concept with many layers. This also holds true for the case of the Resolute Support mission, a ‘stabilisation’ mission in a ‘post-conflict’ territory. These concepts as such are too vague to analyse. What does external intervention mean for the case itself? When is something classified as a post-conflict case? This part will not focus on Afghanistan as the conflict case, however, since this issue is reserved for the case description in a following chapter. The conflict context will be described in the theoretical conceptualisation from an overall perspective, with a focus on concepts relevant for this particular case. A critical reflection on international interventions in conflict territories concludes this section.

2.2.1 Key concepts of post-conflict interventions

Conflict is as old as humans themselves and can arise in many different shapes, sizes and with numerous consequences. Conflict and its nature can fluctuate, as shown by the developments of violent conflicts during the previous century. Moreover, how conflicts are addressed and approached in an increasingly globalizing world, defines the conflict through the eyes of billions. The discipline of conflict studies has come a long way in defining and explaining conflicts. However interesting these developments in the nature of conflicts and their actors have been, this research will only look into their lore after the 2000s. Not because the history would be irrelevant for this study – on the contrary –, but because this would provide enough information to publish several books. With this disclaimer in mind, this section addresses the key concepts relevant for post-conflict territories and international interventions.

To start with the main objective: peace. The end goal of an international peace- or state-building intervention in a post-conflict territory is to create a situation of long-term positive peace (Galtung, 1990). The actions of peace- and state-building interventions in a post-conflict territory are therefore aimed to sustain peace and prevent any future outbreak of conflict (Murithi, 2008).

State-building will therefore be defined here according to Hampson and Mendeloff’s

conceptualisation: “Actions not just directed at ending political violence, but at restoring political order and laying the foundations for democracy in war-torn societies” (2007, p. 679). This definition seems to imply that even though a society is deemed ‘post-conflict’, peace has not yet prevailed. Yet, the situation is at the same time not considered a conflict anymore. This makes the conceptualisation of ‘post-conflict’ quite ambiguous. Arguably, not every academic would agree with classifying Afghanistan as a post-conflict case (Muggah, 2007). Nevertheless, the peacebuilding initiative of this case does approach Afghanistan as a post-conflict case. It is not aimed to end a conflict, but rather to rebuild a stable society, although ending violence is still an objective within the strategy. A post-conflict case seems to be some sort of a hybrid type between conflict and peace. While the intervention strategies and management policies focus on rebuilding, at the time the threat of a new (or perhaps continuation of) violent conflict is not unrealistic. ‘Post-conflict’ is therefore a collective conceptualisation of societies in the transition from an (official) violent conflict or war towards a positive peace. Nations in transition can be highly unstable even after a war has officially ended. As Harris adds, a change of governance or governmental system, does not guarantee the end of political violence, human rights violations and socio-economic disasters (Harris, 1999).

(22)

22

2.2.2 International intervention

The conflict examined in this research is not only a domestic conflict. Through the years, the international community initiated several interventions to deescalate the Afghan situation. Yet, not all had the same objective, goals or instruments. Global interventions have changed after the so-called War on Terror started. The consequences of the US-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have changed the global arena. The goals and critiques regarding the humanitarian interventions and peace-making missions of the 1990s are now accompanied by questions about democracy and state-building in territories worn-out by violence and unstable regimes. The interventions of the United States have raised critical responses towards their intentions and effects. The debate on strategic approaches towards management in post-conflict territories and their effectiveness on the transformation from war to peace has far from ended (Crocker, Hampson & Aall, 2007). In addition to new threats to global security, the attitudes towards leading security organisations, like NATO, in the international system has changed, as will be elaborated upon in the next section. Nevertheless, international interventions in post-conflict societies are still actively pursued today. What is international intervention in a (post-)conflict territory? After the end of the Cold War, the international community has repeatedly intervened in societies emerging from conflict. These interventions have been costly in lives and finances. Yet, these interventions are not all unanimously seen as successful. Serwer and Thompson refer to these aims to build a long-term peace as ‘Peacefare’, a notion not even officially acknowledged by Word itself, possibly because of the following reason:

“‘Peacefare’ is not as developed as warfare. Military organizations worldwide organize, plan, train and fight within clearly established objectives, doctrine, and even internationally established laws of war. But once major fighting ends, the civilians and their military counterparts operate without common doctrine, shared frameworks for planning, or joint training.” (Serwer & Thomson, 2007, p. 369)

Peacefare refers to a complex and interdependent international conflict management system (De Coning, 2008). It might include several governments, intergovernmental organizations, regional organizations, individual actors and many more. As mentioned in the quote above, military operations might have prepared for years to go to war, yet the operations to manage an international intervention in post-conflict territories often do not have this luxury. Moreover, peacefare missions do not have a standardized framework. Admittedly, conflict resolution cannot exist in a framework that fits all conflict cases. Nevertheless, because of this, international interventions often lack structures and clear goals, which makes collaboration between different parties harder and it also makes it difficult to measure and evaluate the (lack of) success of the process (Serwer & Thomson, 2007).

To create more structure, the ‘international community’ has agreed upon a few main values which should be the basis of an international intervention. While actors and institutions might approach and define these values differently, they broadly cover the dimensions of safety and security, rule of law, stable democracy and governance, human rights and social well-being, as well as a sustainable economy (Boutros-Ghali, 1992; De Coning, 2008; Nettling, 2012; Serwer & Thomson, 2007). These five ambitions describe the (desired) end-state of a society emerging from violent conflict. But what part has the implementer to fulfil in order to reach these objectives? These end goals do not include agreed upon means for successfully accomplishing them. While there are multiple means, instruments and approaches, these are not discussed in this section, as the nature of the approach itself will not be analysed. What is interesting about these end goals is that they are seen as international standards that define the meaning of the rule

(23)

23

of law in particular (Kritz, 2007). They are linked to the legitimacy of an international intervention. To overly simplify it, when these end goals are not met in a society, it gives the perception of an illegitimate intervention in a sovereign nation. This is based on a moral legitimacy that has found its support in international rule of law. Yet, many of these moral legitimizations are based on values mainly supported by one particular school of thought, mostly the domain of Western political conservatives, advocating democracy in a Cold War context (Kritz, 2007). While this has affected the framework of peacefare, it does not neglect the major role international interventions have on a post-conflict society.

One of the relevant actors in this respect is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO in short. NATO is the main international body through which the Resolute Support mission is established. NATO is an important actor within the making of defence policies of member states like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. During the first years of the Cold War, several European nations, the United States and Canada created a political and military motivated alliance. This alliance linked the security of the United States to the participating European nations and acted as a strong signal towards opposing nations (Breeman, Van Noort, Rutgers, 2012). After the Cold War, new threats arose, not necessarily bounded by the borders of a nation state. Military forces, once effective on the traditional battlefield, cannot always provide the answer to these new threats (Urquhart, 2007) This is why after the Cold War ended, NATO felt the need to reinvent itself: transforming from a collective defensive treaty into a more ‘peacekeeping’ role. The alliance started to include Central and Eastern European countries and formed a Partnership for Peace programme with former enemies.

Art. 5 of the NATO Treaty is arguably the most famous: “an armed attack against one or more of them [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1949). This collective defence arrangement does not necessarily refer to military action. This article has only been invoked once, although not during the Cold War era. In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in 2001, the collective defence mechanism was practised for the first time in an official operation. This was also the first time NATO actively engaged outside the Euro-Atlantic area and into the territory of Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2017). Moreover, NATO officially added a new task to its Strategic Concept after military operations in (former) Yugoslavia and Serbia. It became possible for NATO to intervene in situations that are not necessarily covered by art. 5. The successor mission in Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force or ISAF, is for example made possible by this construction (Breeman, Van Noort, Rutgers, 2012). This mission is a formal mission led by NATO, in order to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan. This mission has been in place between 2003 and 2014, afterwards being replaced by the non-combat Resolute Support mission (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2015a). However, this shift in focus and the intentions of post-Cold War state-building, have also given rise to critique within academic circles.

2.2.3 Dangers of intervention

State-building does not only address post-Cold War interventions, but has roots going all the way back to the seventeenth century. State-building, its purposes, legitimacy, goals and effectiveness are critically addressed – for many different reasons. Arguably, the critiques touch upon the fundamentals of our understanding about the requirements for political order and democracy and their importance within state-building itself (Hampson & Mendeloff, 2007). Yet, this part focuses on critiques of post-Cold War state-building.

One of the often heard critiques is the assumption of universal values, often inspired by Western values (Chandler, 2010). These assumptions do seem to hold some water, looking at the

(24)

24

main dimensions of peacebuilding as described in Section 2.2.2. These dimensions, safety and security, rule of law, stable democracy and governance, human rights and social well-being, and a sustainable economy, respectively, do indeed have roots in liberal or Western values (Kritz, 2007). The assumption that these values are necessary to create a stable, peaceful nation, is an assumption of superiority towards other alternative approaches (Van Leeuwen, Verkoren & Boedeltje, 2012). Yet, the increase of democracy does not guarantee a decrease of violence, nor are all autocracies unstable, violent territories (Gleditsch & Hegre, 2014). Moreover, it is very well possible that a strategy of applying policies and structures based on Western values to a nation with different (governing) mechanisms, will have negative consequences (Chandler, 2010). As Tilly argues, Western nations themselves came to be within their own socio-historic context. Within this context they developed mechanisms that build their society and governmental system. The values connected to their society developed from centuries of war and peace and are in essence unique for their society (Tilly, 1985). In other words, what works for one nation might not work for another. Yet, Western values still dominate state-building policies and do not leave much room for alternative approaches.

Another cause for failure, addressed by some, is not the essence of the approach, but the weak government of the nations where an intervention takes place (Chandler, 2006). Yet again, state-building has in essence the task to recreate political and governmental order. That is why this argument is quite paradoxical, as the problem why the intervention is not working is at least partially the reason to intervene in the first place. This is very likely linked to the approach itself. Nevertheless, the role of the government of the state intervened does seem to play a role in the success of an intervention. Regional and local power structures determine the possibilities for interventions. Corrupt government officials or undemocratic rulers like warlords have the possibility to harm the process. Yet again, for moral reasons state-building programmes have the tendency to neglect these power structures already in place. This tendency itself might harm the process effectiveness. Moral considerations are in place, as local power structures might not hold democracy and human rights in high regards, possibly even going against the core values of the intervening actors. However, modelling governmental institutions in Western images, while neglecting local power structures, could cause frictions and blind spots. According to some, this is also the main reason why a state-building mission can cause a high aid-dependent recipient instead of an independent stable government (Mazzer, 2014).

This aid-dependency is problematic and results in a difficulty for intervening nations to pull back from their activities. While aiming to create a stable territory, it does so by taking over and executing main governmental tasks of the intervened nation. This makes the government of the intervened nation itself increasingly dependent on funds, knowledge and skills from the intervening actors (Verkoren & Kamphuis, 2013). It also results in a flawed ‘social contract’. Normally the state depends on its citizens’ participation in its economy, and in turn citizens can hold their government responsible for performing its governmental responsibilities (Tilly, 1985). The leverage of citizens is decreasing with the dependency of their government towards a foreign donor. As far as the value of democracy goes, these citizens do not only hardly have any leverage over their own government, they subsequently do not have a voice in the policy-making process of the intervening nations, even though the intervention does directly influence their lives (Verkoren & Kamphuis, 2013).

Arguably, some core elements of international interventions go against the dimensions of peace and state-building. Some would argue therefore that the official goal of state-building, actions directed at ending political violence, restoring political order and laying the foundations for democracy in war-torn societies, might not be the main reason for intervention, but rather

(25)

25

merely an excuse to pursue imperialistic tendencies or to gain political and/or economic power over the territory (Chandler, 2006; Mazzer, 2014). Another possibility is that the approach takes place in such a complex field, that it is hard to navigate through. As mentioned before, measuring the impact of policies in an unstable field consisting of multidimensional actors, is quite difficult (De Coning, 2008). The feedback phase for these kinds of policies is complicated, as well as learning and improving before implementing new policies; especially given the problem of preparation time in an unstable field and the increasing dependency of the receivers (Serwer & Thomson, 2007).

In observing these critical perspectives on international state-building interventions, a depressing picture of post-conflict peacefare surfaces. Indeed, these critiques do address realistic dangers of international military operations. These dangers and difficulties should be taken into account in researching this topic, as they do not only affect the conflict context itself, but also the complexity and time pressure within conflict cases and the core values of the organisation are likely to influence the policy-makers in their decision-making process.

2.2.5 Conclusion

Conflict is a complicated, multidimensional concept and the approaches towards solving conflicts have cahnged over time. A new conflict era demanded a new form of collective action and cooperation, answered by a shift of focus from NATO. NATO is one of the actors that aims to restore and keep a positive peace and at the turn of the millennium, NATO has shifted from its traditional role in cooperative defence towards a role of active peacefare operator. Recognising post-conflict state-building as being an essential part of preserving peace and fighting terrorism (Urquhart, 2007). Peace- and state-building interventions are, like conflict itself, a complex interdependent international system in which many different actors with their own particular interests are active. To create one framework for peace- and state-building operations is therefore impossible. Every case in itself is unique and intervening actors should therefore pay attention to the individual context of the case itself (Paris, 2010). Moreover, it is necessary to be aware of the underlying causes of post-conflict cases, to research them and learn from success and failures (Newman, 2014). This is a major issue for policy-makers. Because of the complexity of the conflict context and the pressure of having to make critical decisions within a short amount of time, it is hard to evaluate policies and gain enough information and resources to address all the dimensions of the post-conflict situation.

2.3 Media influence

It is possible that this information gap and the complexity of the situation opens a window of opportunity for another type of actor to influence the policy-making process. Specialised in gaining and sharing information, this ‘other’ actor has been a part of the policy-making process from the beginning, and its influential reach has possibly grown during the previous decades with the increase of communication techniques: the mass media. What role do the mass media play in the policy-making process of foreign state-building interventions? This section aims to explain the role of mass media and the implications it can have on the policy-makers and the conflict context. ‘Mass media’ is a concept used for technological means of communication that provide a link between many individuals. They have played a major role in the development of modern societies, cultural identities and political formations. Western media systems, in particular media in North-American and West-European countries, are very similar. However, like the political systems of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, some differences in media systems might be visible on a national level. To a significant degree, media is influenced by the

(26)

26

state. National broadcasts dominate prime-time schedules on mass channels; some of these channels are made available and financed by the state and the freedom of press is influenced by state behaviour (Hardy, 2010). For example, press freedom within a nation might differ, giving national media different opportunities to scrutinise their policy-makers’ behaviour. Looking at the Press Freedom Index, this seems to be the case for the nations compared. Whereas the Kingdom of the Netherlands is number 3 on the index list, making it one of the most press free nations in the world, the United Kingdom is merely number 40 on this list (Reporters Without Borders, 2018). Bearing these possible differences in mind, Western media systems are comparable in their overall patterns of economic development and political history. Moreover, media seem to develop and operate more and more on a global scale, making the stream of information more fused with each other (Hardy, 2010).

2.3.1 Mass media and policy-makers

In Western media systems, a strong vertical connection between national governments and media is assumed. Traditionally, a clear dominant national media is the leading provider of information in most Western states. While many researchers have aimed to map media in their national context as to compare their systems on an international level, it turns out that the influence of media is a complicated game,1_{depending on complex interactions between economic and political}

powers (Hardy, 2010). Influencing policy is therefore case-dependent and it would be futile for this research to map the systems of media within both nations. However, what is interesting for this research are the patterns found in the relationship between the mass media and policy-makers, from here on referred to as the political elites.

It is more likely that the political elites and the political process influence the media, rather than the other way around. This is because the political culture of a society has a major influence on how news media cover conflict. Because political realities often determine the use of news media to achieve political goals and because political decisions have a major influence on the operation of media, media are more likely to react to an event than to initiate them (Wolfsfeld, 1997). However, this does not mean it is impossible for the media to influence the political elites. Negative news coverage increases the chances that public opinion might change accordingly, could possibly damage the credibility of the government and might raise doubts among political elites themselves (Robinson, 2001). Moreover, as the policy cycle has shown, media play a fundamental role in the agenda-setting phase, as media is a very important source of information and communication intermediary between political elites and their citizens (Beunders & Muller, 2005). Media help in setting the political agenda, can accelerate and magnify political successes and failures, serve as advocates for minorities, mobilize groups into conflict and are essential in constructing social and political frames (Wolfsfeld, 1997). Nevertheless, according to Robinson, the access to these possibilities is related to the position of the political elites. The position of political elites towards the policy is a fundamental variable in the possibility for media to influence policy.

Generally speaking, it is assumed that political elites try to motivate journalists to positively report their preferred perspective on policies (Robinson, 1999), resulting in media coverage fitting the elites’ framework. To report according to the elites’ framework, there needs to be consensus among the political elites about this framework. If there is elite consensus, media

1_{Becoming even more complicated to comprehend with the rapid rise of social media and their alternative}

revenue models in the past years, paving a way for non-traditional actors to participate in the political arena. While the theoretic framework is based on classic to relatively new media theories, the conclusion will refer to the newest age of media and steps for future research on this matter.