Agenda-setting of The Netherlands on military interventions

(1)

1

Agenda-setting of The Netherlands on military interventions

The cases of Libya 2011, Mali 2013, and Iraq 2014

Master Thesis Public Administration

Name Student:

Claire Isabelle Bleize

Student Number:

S2381923

Specialisation:

International and European Governance

Date handing in:

March 11 2020

Supervisor:

Dhr. V. Karakasis

Second Reader:

Dr. A. Afonso

(2)

2

Abstract

This research focuses on the agenda-setting of The Netherlands on military interventions. This thesis is based on various different theories provided by authors such as Allison and Zellikow (1999), Brulé, Mintz and DeRouen (2013), and Almond (1956). These theories address different factors that potentially influence, or not, agenda-setting and/or decision-making on foreign policy/military interventions.

Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’ is used because this theory creates the possibility to broadly capture various developments. These are developments happening in society (problem stream), but also on the government level (policy stream), and among Dutch citizens (political stream). Kingdon (2014) identifies these three developments as the ‘three streams’. According to Kingdon’s (2014) theory, the crossing of these ‘three streams’ leads to the ‘policy window’. In this research, each final decision of the Dutch government to participate in a military intervention is considered a ‘policy window’.

The Dutch government agenda-setting on military interventions to Libya in 2011, Mali in 2013, and Iraq in 2014 are examined in this research. The comparison of these three cases through Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’ shows that various factors are influential in agenda-setting of the Dutch government on the military interventions. The most crucial finding of this research is that, by applying Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’, it is difficult to unravel exactly which factors are influential. For instance, the government documents used to examine the policy stream do not provide a complete and transparent overview of all meetings that took place. The missing piece in this puzzle is for instance that it is not clear what the government discusses when reaching a decision on Article 100.

Although it is not possible to confirm the findings, factors that seem to influence agenda-setting of The Netherlands in this thesis are mostly rooted in the problem stream and in the policy stream. These may cross, however, it is also possible that only one of these streams seems to be influential. The factors that are influential are different for each case, although it is often not possible to confirm whether factors have definitely been influential. In this research it seems that the political stream has not been influential.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

Since The Second World War, The Netherlands has been searching for ways to be active on the international stage (Klep, 1998). Klep (1998) categorizes The Netherlands as a country that is eager to participate on the international level, but it does not always work. The Srebrenica case in 1995 is one of the historical cases in which The Netherlands played a pivotal role by sending military troops to this conflict (Klep, 1998).

Although the Srebenica case is a dark spot in Dutch history (Klep, 1998), and the participation in ’peacekeeping’ missions of the United Nations diminished in the 90’s (Van Willigen, 2016), the country has more recently been active on the global stage.

This active approach is shown in March 2011, when the Dutch government decided to participate in the operation ‘Unified Protector’ of NATO (van Deventer, 2012). This active approach is again shown in 2013, when The Netherlands deploys soldiers to Mali Iraq (van Willigen, 2016). In Mali, The Netherlands engages in an operation of the United Nations called ‘MINUSMA’ (van Willigen, 2016). Lastly, in 2014 The Netherlands decides to send troops to Iraq, to engage in the battle to overcome terrorist group IS (Schoofs, 2017).

1.1 Libya 2011

The demonstrations in Libya started mid-February 2011 (Human Rights Watch, 2012). These type of demonstrations against the authorities already took place in countries located near Libya, such as Egypt (Human Rights Watch, 2012). As a response, the state armed forces used force against the Libyan citizens which led to highly violent situations (Human Rights Watch, 2012). The United Nations Security Council highly condemned the use of violence by the ruler and imposed an arms’ embargo on February 26 2011, called ‘Resolution 1970’ (Human Rights Watch, 2012).

Eventually, as the situation regarding the use of extreme force by the Libyan rulers did not improve, the Security Council provided a mandate approving the use of military force (Human Rights Watch, 2012). Resolution 1973, the Security Council paved the way for the establishment of ‘operation Unified Protector’ (Human Rights Watch, 2012). This operation was led by ‘NATO’, and included amongst others the implementation of a ‘no-fly zone’, and an arms ‘embargo’ (Human Rights Watch, 2012). The operation stopped at the end of October 2011 (van Geel, de Koster, and Osinga, 2013).

(6)

6

1.2 Mali 2013

In comparison to Libya 2011, Mali was already politically unstable for a long period of time. The country became autonomous in 1960 (Chafer, 2016). This led to unrest in Malian society, because there was a strong divide between different groups (Chafer, 2016). This unrest deteriorated further, including a take-over of the government in 2012 (Chafer, 2016). Eventually, the French government concluded that military action was needed to block the growth of terrorism in Mali (Chafer, 2016). The French intervened at the beginning of January 2013 (Chafer, 2016).

A couple of months later, ‘MINUSMA’ was announced by the United Nations on April 25 2013 (Bergamaschi, 2013). ‘MINUSMA’ is the abbreviation for ‘’United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali’’ (United Nations Peacekeeping, n.d.). This mission entails a ‘peacekeeping’ operation which has the objective to support Mali to become stable, which also contributes to the prevention of the growth of terrorism in the country (United Nations, 2013). Subsequently, this operation has a very extensive scope and includes many different tasks (Bergamaschi, 2013). The Netherlands contribution’ to this operation broadly entails gathering data (NOS, 2019). Eventually, Dutch engagement in this operation came to an end in the beginning of May 2019 (NOS, 2019).

1.3 Iraq 2014

In 2014, terrorist group ‘Islamic State’, also known as ‘IS’, ‘ISIL’ or ‘Daesh’, ‘conquered’ Iraqi soil very rapidly (de Braaf, 2019). The Iraqi administration sent out a request for support of global allies to fight this terrorist group (de Braaf, 2019). This eventually led to the establishment of the ‘Global Coalition against Daesh’, which aims to fight IS using amongst others armed forces (de Braaf, 2019; Global Coalition, n.d.a.).

On September 24 2014, The Netherlands decided to participate in the battle against IS (Global Coalition, n.d.b). This means that, from October 2014, the country was involved for two years until 2016 (Global Coalition, n.d.b). In this period, The Netherlands is in charge of providing combat air crafts in this battle (Global Coalition, n.d.b). This thesis focuses on agenda-setting of The Netherlands on the engagement in this battle in the period of October 2014 – 2016. Although The Netherlands is still involved in this battle, this thesis focuses on the agenda-setting period from before September 24 2014.

(7)

7 These three cases show Netherlands’ military involvement in different conflicts, international organizations, and tasks. However, the outcome for each case is the same: Dutch participation in a military intervention. What the literature is missing is the identification of these parameters that led to this decision. To this end, the research question that I seek to address here is:

‘’Which factors influenced the Dutch agenda-setting on military interventions in Libya, Mali and Iraq?’’

1.4 Relevance

Based on the research question stated above, the academic and societal relevance is explained in the following paragraphs.

1.4.1 Academic Relevance

The academic relevance of this research question can be linked to existing literature on agenda-setting and decision-making. Several theories address differently the way state leaders make decisions. This varies from the ‘Rational Actor Model’, (cited here as RAM) to public opinion studies. The first generation of foreign policy scholars interpreted foreign policy decisions through the lens of RAM. This model has been extensively explained by Allison and Zellikow (1999). The trademark of the Rational Actor Model is its attempt to explain international events by recounting the aims and calculations of nations or governments. There is a common understanding among competing policy-makers about what national interests are at stake. They pursue foreign policy actions and strategies unimpaired by domestic developments.

There is a different approach which focuses on the role of ‘Leadership’ and the ‘belief system’. Theories provided by Brulé, Mintz, and DeRouen (2013), and Karakasis (2019), give more insight into the influence of the ‘belief system’ of a leader when reaching foreign policy decisions. In addition, Chafer (2016), Ralph (2011), and Kaarbo (2018) focus on cases in which the leader of a country has specific influence in the agenda-setting on a military mission. For instance, Chafer (2016) assesses the influence of the belief system of the French President as regards France’s military intervention to Mali (Chafer, 2016). In a similar fashion Ralph (2011) examines the role of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in the agenda-setting on engagement in the Iraq War of 2003. Kaarbo (2018) pays attention to the role of the Leader/Prime Minister in ‘parliamentary democracies’.

There is a third strand of literature that sets forth the role of public opinion in the formulation of foreign policy. Based on early works of Almond (1956) and Lippmann (Holsti, 1992), the potential of ‘public opinion’ on foreign policy was strongly rejected. Recent scholars, such as Gribble, et al (2015),

(8)

8 Haesebrouck (2019), and O’Connor and Vucetic (2010) have discounted this aphorismand claim that public opinion matters when it comes to foreign policy issues.

While all these theories are significant in deciphering the motives behind foreign policy decision-making, the literature lacks an all-encompassing framework that would shed light on their interactive role in foreign policy making. The literature necessitates a framework that would include premises from the rational actor model, the importance of leadership as well as the role of domestic developments. Taking these aspects into consideration, this thesis takes a public policy perspective on studying the Dutch military interventions and applies Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’. I strongly believe that through this theory it is possible to capture each of these three different broad theories on foreign policy and military interventions. Both the policy stream and the political stream provided by Kingdon (2014) are linked to the sections above. This is done in order to show a connection between Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’ and with the literature. As Kingdon (2014) explains, his model consists of the ‘problem stream’, the ‘policy stream’, and the ‘political stream’. The ‘policy stream’ can be linked to subchapters RAM and Leadership because these involve different theories focusing on how decision-makers tend to approach certain situations in which a decision is made. The ‘political stream’ can be linked to subchapter Public Opinion on because both focus on the general tendency of citizens in society. The ‘problem stream’ in this case focuses on the ‘focusing event’.

The main thought this theory holds is that when the three streams cross, a ‘policy window’ is created. Therefore, using Kingdon’s (2014) theory as the main theory to unravel which determinants are influential in agenda-setting of the Dutch government, it would be possible to build on the theories mentioned in the theoretical framework. The application of Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’, linked to already existing theories, to cases of agenda-setting of The Netherlands’ military interventions provides academic insight into this process. Based on this combination of the theoretical framework in combination with Kingdon’s (2014) theory, three expectations are set. This thesis expects to find that the role of the Prime Minister of The Netherlands in agenda-setting on the military interventions to Libya 2011, Mali 2013, and Iraq 2014 is crucial.

On the contrary, the second expectation involves that public opinion does not play a significant role in agenda-setting of the Dutch government. Lastly, based on these theories it is expected that mainly the ‘problem stream’ and the ‘policy stream’ are influential regarding agenda-setting on military interventions, whereas the ‘political’ stream is not.

(9)

9 1.4.2. Societal Relevance

First of all, military interventions involve a high level of risk that affects a group of Dutch citizens directly. Soldiers who are deployed to a dangerous conflict area, leaving their families, friends and relatives behind, knowing that the possibility exists that they will not return. Secondly, when The Netherlands decides to participate in a military intervention, the country chooses a side. Although it depends per case, the Dutch become involved in an international conflict, which may also have consequences for Dutch citizens in different ways. Thirdly, this thesis provides more insight in the process of agenda-setting of the Dutch government on military interventions. Taking societal relevance into account, this thesis contributes to the level of transparency for Dutch citizens regarding agenda-setting on military interventions.

1.5 Method of Data Collection and Analysis

This research conducts a Small-N comparative case analysis. The method of Data Collection used in this thesis focuses on gathering empirical documents through various online sources, websites, and databases. As mentioned in the previous subchapter, each of Kingdon’s (2014) ‘streams’ is focused on independently. For the ‘problem stream’, newspaper articles are gathered through Nexis Uni. For the ‘policy stream’, government documents are gathered through government website ‘de Tweede Kamer’. Lastly, for the ‘problem stream’, statistics on public opinion and documents on the general tendency in society are gathered. The latter is reached through government website ‘Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau’, ‘Social and Cultural Planning Office’.

Once the empirical documents are gathered, the information analysed. This is done by comparing the retrieved information in order to discover similarities and/or differences.

1.6 Brief Overview of Contents

In order to provide a clear overview of this thesis, a concise overview of the layout of this thesis is provided. Chapter 2 focuses on the theoretical framework, this includes the theories that are also described in subchapter 1.2.1 Academic Relevance. In this chapter, theories are described and explained in more detail.

Subsequently, Chapter 3 is the methodology chapter which includes the research design and the data collection. In the research design, the methods used for this research are described and explained. Also concepts such as reliability and validity are discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, the data collection, which contains the gathered empirical information, is also included in this chapter.

Fourthly, Chapter 4 involves the analysis of the empirical documents that are found. In this analysis, the empirical discoveries are linked to the theories of the theoretical framework.

(10)

10 Lastly, Chapter 5 entails the Conclusion. In this Conclusion, amongst others the research question is answered, and limitations of this research are mentioned.

2. Theoretical Framework

In my effort to address my research question, I divide this theoretical chapter into four sections. In the first part, I present the literature that examines the role of the State in foreign policy making by looking into the Rational Actor Model (RAM). In the second one, I present the literature on the role of Leadership in foreign policy-making. In the third one, I investigate the linkages between public opinion and foreign policy-making. While the key premises of all themes are important, I pinpoint the significance of a more integrative framework that could encompass them and adequately express the complicated nature of the factors behind Dutch foreign policy. This framework is offered by Kingdon’s ‘Multiple Stream Framework’.

2.1 Rational Actor Model

The traditional model explaining countries’ foreign policy decisions is the Rational Actor Model (RAM). Allison and Zellikow (1999) clarify that RAM tries to reveal occurrences on a global level by focusing on the ‘calculations’ made and objectives of states/countries. In addition, Karakasis (2019) explains, by referring to a Kaarbo and Ray (2011), that this RAM theory treats a country as a ‘unitary actor’ (Karakasis, 2019, cited from Kaarbo and Ray, 2011, p. 140). This means that domestic politics and differences of beliefs between across leaders and within the parliament do not exert any influence on foreign policy decisions of states (Karakasis, 2019; Kaarbo and Ray 2011). Referring to Trenta (2016), Karakasis (2019) explains that the political leaders assigned to make foreign policy decisions, operate unrestrained from national restrains and decide by themselves how much ‘risk’ they are willing to take (Karakasis 2019, cited from Trenta 2016, p. 37). ‘Rationality’ is also an important indicator linked to this Model, according to Karakasis (2019). Based on Allison (1971, p.30) and Ferguson and Mansbach (2003, p. 122), Karakasis (2019) explains that decisions are made by conducting a list of all possible options and subsequently make a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis to discover which option is most ideal to pursue the set objectives (Karakasis 2019, cited from Allison, 1971, p. 30, and Ferguson and Mansbach, 2003, p. 122).

Referring to Hellema (2001), Schoofs (2017) mentions that The Netherlands has an engaging approach towards armed interference. The author infers that the global position of the country has considerable effect on its foreign policy (Schoofs, 2017). In addition, information mentioned by Schoofs (2017), referring to Rood (2011) explains that because of the small size, The Netherlands benefits from a stable and good working rule of law. To achieve this, the country has to engage in military interventions (Schoofs, 2017; Rood 2011).

(11)

11 Schoofs (2017) conducts an examination on Netherlands’ foreign policy making, by examining decision-making on military engagement to Syria in 2016. The author examines how the results of the Davids Committee, which is research on Dutch decision-making on the Iraq war in 2003 have influenced decision-making on foreign policy/military interventions, in particular on the Syria case (Schoofs, 2017). To do the research, government documents are examined (Schoofs, 2017). The main finding provided is that these results presented by the Davids Committee has a high level of influence on Netherlands’ decision-making on engagement (Schoofs, 2017). Schoofs (2017) explains that the results lead to the fact that The Netherlands was in charge of deciding on the actions they decide to take, instead of following other countries. Furthermore, the author explains that the ‘terrorist attacks’ in Europe connected to IS, the growth of the ‘refugee crisis’, and the engagement of several allies, were of influence for The Netherlands to decide to engage (Schoofs, 2017).

2.2 Leadership – Belief System

Another strand of literature on foreign policy analysis focuses on the role of the leader and the influence the leader has on the agenda-setting. Brulé, Mintz, and DeRouen (2013) provide literature focusing on various theories of ‘decision-making’. The authors also address certain ‘biases’ which could influence ‘decision-making’ (Brulé, Mintz, and DeRouen, 2013). One of these biases that is influential are the ‘beliefs’ of the decision-maker in charge (Brulé, Mintz, and DeRouen, 2013). The authors mention that the possibility exists that the main decision-maker already knows which decision he/she is going to take (Brulé, Mintz, and DeRouen, 2013). In addition, Karakasis (2019) addresses that decision-makers can never make a fully ‘rational’ decision, called ‘bounded rationality’ (Karakasis, 2019, cited from Simon, 1955). This occurs especially in complicated cases (Karakasis, 2019). In addition, the author explains that the ‘behavioural approach’ is a different stream that focuses on beliefs/ideas a leader has beforehand (Karakasis, 2019). It also clarifies how these influence a leaders decision-making and behaviour (Karakasis, 2019).

Articles provided by Chafer (2016), Kaarbo (2018), and Ralph (2011) show the influence of the leader in foreign policy in different situations. Whereas Kaarbo (2018) investigates the role of the leader regarding inclusion of parliaments in decision-making, Chafer (2016) conducts research on the French policy approach towards Africa, using the military operation to Mali in 2013 as a case study, of which the findings show that former French President Hollande has had strong influence in this. The President was the person who ultimately made the decision to dispatch troops to Mali (Chafer, 2016). Ralph (2011) conducts research on UK decision-making regarding engagement in the US war in 2003, having specific focus on the role of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in this process. Although each article has a different angle and uses different methodologies, the importance of the role of the leader is shown.

(12)

12 Kaarbo (2018) contributes to knowledge on the ‘leader’/’Prime Minister’, having the objective to conduct research on how dissimilar approaches of ‘leadership’ of Prime Ministers could potentially improve or diminish the parliaments role concerning decision-making on ‘security policy’ (Kaarbo, 2018). ‘Intra-country comparison’ is done comparing the UK and Turkey as case studies (Kaarbo, 2018). ‘Leadership Trait Analysis’ is used to examine information retrieved and to unravel the approach of the ‘Prime Minister’ regarding participation of the ‘Parliament’ in decision-making on security policy (Kaarbo, 2018). Several main findings are reported by Kaarbo (2018), who also mentions that more research is required to confirm these interpretations. Kaarbo (2018) reports, by referring to Blondel, (1980); Dowding, (2013); Dyson, (2016); Kaarbo (1997); Kaarbo and Hermann, (1998), that the ‘Prime Minister’ in general does have a crucial role in this type of political system. In addition, Kaarbo (2018) mentions several other findings. Referring to Kesgin and Kaarbo (2010) and Reiter and Tillman (2002), Kaarbo (2018) mentions that existing determinants such as ‘public opinion’, may potentially have an effect on ‘foreign policy’ and on the approach of the parliament towards ‘security policies’ (Kaarbo, 2018). Whether these determinants have an effect on a certain policy, depends on the perception of the ‘leader’/’Prime Minister’ (Kaarbo, 2018). This perception of the leader also holds for the engagement of the parliament in this policy field, which is also determined by thoughts and opinions of the leader (Kaarbo, 2018). This acknowledges the ‘belief system’ as mentioned by Brulé, Mintz, and DeRouen (2013) in the previous paragraph. The findings provided by Ralph (2011) direct to Blair’s beliefs and how this influenced decision making. PM Blair believed that the connection with the US is crucial to maintain, and hard to rebuild in case this connection is damaged (Ralph, 2011). The author refers to empirical evidence, namely a declaration provided by the subsequent chief of the United States’ ‘State Department Policy Planning Staff’ appointed when Obama came into power (Ralph, 2011). In this declaration, the chief of this government section states amongst others that at time of decision-making on Iraq, the United States should have focused more on opinions of other nations (Ralph, 2011). Ralph (2011) mentions that this contradicts Blair’s believe, that this was not the case (Ralph, 2011). This research is based on the examination of decision-making on the Iraq war and focuses on -Blair’s perception of- the ‘international community’ (Ralph, 2011). Moving from research focused on the UK, Chafer (2016) aims to provide an answer if the military operation to Mali proves that France changed its policy approach towards the African continent (Chafer, 2016). The research is based on existing literature and documents to examine the decision-making process (Chafer, 2011).

(13)

13 The research conducted does agree that the French policy approach towards Africa transformed while Hollande had the lead (Chafer, 2016). However, the author explains that this was not the objective from the beginning and happened step by step (Chafer, 2016). Based on these findings, the expectation is that Netherlands’ Prime Minister has played a crucial role in agenda-setting on the military interventions to Libya 2011, Mali 2014, and Iraq 2014.

Overall, this subchapter shows the importance of the role of the leader/the Prime Minister, and the parliament, and how the leaders’ personal thoughts and opinions regarding military interventions may influence agenda-setting on military interventions.

2.3 Public Opinion

An additional strand of literature forges linkages between public opinion and foreign policy. The scholars are divided on the role of public opinion on foreign policy. There are scholars that assign a significant role on public opinion as regards foreign policy decision making (Holsti, 1992, Gribble, et al, 2015; Burstein, 2003; Haesebrouck, 2019; O’Connor and Vucetic) and others that downplay its role (Almond, 1956; Lippmann, 1922 (referred to in Holsti, 1992); Kreps 2010; Van der Meulen and Vos, 2008).

2.3.1 Public opinion does not influence foreign policy making

Almond (1956) conducts research on the relationship between the general view in society and the US ‘security policy’, and finds a negative relationship between both. This article is built on a presentation given by Almond at the ‘Army War College’ and identifies the difficulties of the public opinion and national security policy in the US (Almond, 1956). The author mentions, for instance, that public opinion is uninterested when, according to Almond (1956), the public should rather be concerned, and the other way around (Almond, 1956). Another author sharing this perception is Lippmann. Holsti (1992) addresses amongst others the views of Lippmann (1922, 1925) on public opinion, the author refers to Lippmann (1922, 1925) explaining that Lippmann holds the thought that the regular citizen is usually mostly occupied with the work that has to be done in daily life, and the world of ‘foreign affairs’ is too far away (Holsti, 1992, referring to Lippmann 1922). The ‘Almond-Lippmann consensus’, established after the Second World War, holds amongst others that ‘public opinion’ does not have an effect on the government's’ policies of international relations (Holsti, 1992).

In addition to these more traditional theories, several authors provided contemporary research that agrees on the fact that public opinion does not influence foreign policy making. The articles discussed in this paragraph focus on case studies on the military intervention to Afghanistan

(14)

14 taking different angles into account. Kreps (2010) published an article on military engagement in Afghanistan 2001 organized by NATO, questioning why countries continue to militarily engage in these operations even though citizens do not approve. Research specifically focusing on The Netherlands shows that the Dutch government Dutch government did not take the common beliefs in society regarding this into account (Van der Meulen and Vos, 2008). Based on this, Van der Meulen and Vos (2008) provide an article on Dutch ‘public opinion’, focusing on the Dutch military operation to Uruzgan aiming to identify which determinants influence citizens to support the operation. Although the most important finding of Kreps (2010) is in line with the statements of van der Meulen and Vos (2008), namely that ‘public opinion’ was not influential in policy making on the military operation researched, the studies differ in methodology and case studies. Kreps (2010) compares statistics of NATO countries on public support for the operation to Afghanistan. Furthermore, Kreps (2010) conducts a ‘Small-N comparative case study’ on NATO countries Italy, Canada, Germany, and France (Kreps, 2010). Van der Meulen and Vos (2008) research’ is based on reports and statistics. By conducting a ‘regression analysis’ the authors aim to understand which determinants influence public approval (van der Meulen and Vos, 2008). Kreps (2010) eventually concludes that the common belief in society does not have an impact. This is because of the general agreement among the decision-makers to engage in the operation organized by an organization as NATO, despite lack of support (Kreps, 2010).

2.3.2 Public opinion does influence foreign policy making

Holsti (1992) conducts research questioning the ‘Almond-Lippmann consensus’. The author eventually finds that, although research on this relationship increased after the Vietnam War, it is not set in stone whether public opinion influences foreign policy (Holsti, 1992). In the conclusion, the author mentions that the research examined seems to increase the belief that public opinion influences foreign policy (Holsti, 1992). However, the author mentions that more additional research has to be done, amongst others because of differences in the context (Holsti, 1992). Also, the author mentions more research should be done on countries other than the US (Holsti, 1992). Referring to Eichenberg (1989) and Risse-Kappen (1991), who conducted research on other countries, Holsti (1992) mentions more additional research should be done.

This research provided by Holsti (1992) already shows that it is not that necessarily the case that public opinion does not influence foreign policy. Burstein (2003) conducts research on the influence of common belief in society on ‘public policy’, finding that it does have a considerable effect. This article does not – only – focus on ‘foreign policy’/’military interventions’, but focuses on ‘public policy’ in general (Burstein, 2003). These findings are retrieved by examining academic articles (Burstein, 2003). Gribble, et al. (2015) conduct research on the UK citizens beliefs by using information

(15)

15 provided by the British Social Attitudes Survey 2011. Results of this survey are used to compare the UK ‘public opinion’ on UK deployment of soldiers to Iraq 2003 and Afghanistan 2001 (Gribble, et al., 2015). The crucial finding of this research is that this case shows that ‘public opinion’ is/has been able to forthcoming ‘foreign policy’, having lasting consequences for the safety ‘policy’ of the ‘UK’ (Gribble, et al., 2015).

Other findings provided by contemporary research show that other variables are influential which results in different outcomes. This occurs in the findings provided by Haesebrouck (2019) and O’Connor and Vucetic (2010). The findings of Haesebrouck (2019) partially agree on this restraining influence of public opinion mentioned by Gribble, et al (2015). The author presents research on the relationship between ‘military intervention’, ‘public opinion’, and ‘threats (Haesebrouck, 2019). Two cases are examined, the Libya operation in 2011 and the fight against IS, in which the EU MS decided to deploy troops (Haesebrouck, 2019). A ‘coincidence analysis’ is done to gather data (Haesebrouk, 2019). Although Gribble, et al. (2015) provide the finding that public opinion is having a restraining effect for multiple cases of military intervention by the UK, Haesebrouk (2019) provides findings in which the effect of ‘public opinion’ has different results. Regarding the Libya intervention, ‘public opinion’ was considered a restraint, whereas this was not the case for the deployment of soldiers to IS (Haesebrouck, 2019). Haesebrouck (2019) states that the circumstances of armed interference are crucial considering the variables examined. In this case, Haesebrouck (2019) states that it depends on the transparency and concreteness of the domestic advantages if ‘public opinion’ has a restraining influence on armed forces, or if this restraint is caused by threats to domestic advantages. Similar findings are provided by O’Connor and Vucetic (2010), who conduct research why Australia decided to engage in the Iraq 2003 military intervention organized by the US, whereas Canada decided not to engage. Focusing on ‘public opinion’, ‘political parties’, and ‘strategic culture’, the authors try to explain behaviour of both countries (O’Connor and Vucetic, 2010). The research is based on existing research and statistics (O’Connor and Vucetic, 2010). The findings provided are similar to research provided by Haesebrouck (2019), in the sense that the cases chosen by the authors show a different outcome. For Canada, ‘public opinion’ had meaningful influence whereas this was not the case for Australia (O’Connor and Vucetic, 2010). The authors mention that this has to do with the different positions and pasts of both countries (O’Connor and Vucetic, 2010). For instance, in case of Australia, one of the most important objectives is to maintain a stable relationship with the US, whereas this is less important for Canada due to their position next to the US (O’ Connor and Vucetic, 2010).

(16)

16 All in all, both subchapters provide valid points whether public opinion influences foreign policy or not. Based on the retrieved information, the following expectation is formulated: the expectation is that in case of The Netherlands, public opinion does not play a significant role in agenda-setting of the Dutch government.

2.4 Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Framework

What is at stake in this project is to decipher the factors that pushed this decision forward. I make use of an all-encompassing framework that includes all the premises of the literature that I made above: RAM, leadership and public opinion. I adopt Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Framework for this purpose. The reason I do this is because I treat the Dutch decision to participate in military interventions as an important milestone in the Dutch foreign policy. This milestone, according to Kingdon’s framework is the by-product of the interaction of three streams: ‘problem-stream’, ‘policy-stream’ and ‘political-‘policy-stream’. Each category that I presented above (RAM, Belief System, and Public Opinion) can be linked to ‘policy stream’, and the ‘political stream’, which are provided by Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple stream framework’. This theory dives into the mechanisms that are connected to subjects that appear on the ‘agenda’ of the government (Kingdon, 2014). This framework is chosen to use because, as explained in the first subchapter, this framework provides a more integrative theoretical framework compared to existing theories on decision-making. A more detailed explanation of these three streams is provided in the following paragraphs.

2.4.1 Agenda-Setting

Research conducted by Kingdon (2014) aims to clarify why one problem in society is recognized by the government and put on the ‘agenda’, whereas another problem is not. Kingdon (2014) conceptualizes the ‘agenda’ as following: ‘’The agenda, as I conceive it, is the list of subjects or problems to which governmental officials, and people outside of government closely associated with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time … Out of the set of all conceivable subjects or problems to which officials could be paying attention, they do in fact seriously attend to some rather than others. So the agenda-setting process narrows this set of conceivable subjects to the set that actually becomes the focus of attention.’’ (Kingdon, 2014, p.3).

(17)

17

2.4.1 The Problem Stream

Kingdon (2014) defines a ‘problem’ as a situation in which it is certain that action must be taken to reform this situation. Kingdon (2014) identifies this stream by the identification of a ‘problem’ by citizens and people working for the government/decision-makers. There may be various reasons why a ‘problem’ may receive government attention. Although the government usually is aware of several problems in society, a ‘focusing event’ often has to occur first before the government recognizes that a certain ‘problem’ may need government action (Kingdon, 2014). This ‘focusing event’ entails a sudden and/or dramatic event (Kingdon, 2014). A decision-makers’ private affinity with a ‘problem’, or strong ‘symbols’ may lead to the government to acknowledge a ‘problem’ (Kingdon, 2014).

Schoofs (2017) article provides insight into events that could be categorized as possible focusing events. In line with Kingdon’s (2014) definition, it is possible to identify the ‘refugee crisis’, ‘threats’, and ‘terrorist attacks’ mentioned by Schoofs (2017), as the ‘focusing events’. Schoofs (2017) mentions that these events seem to have led to military participation of the Dutch government. Based on this information, the ‘focusing event’ is the conceptualization for this thesis to identify Kingdon’s (2014) ‘problem stream’.

2.4.3 The Policy Stream

People active in this stream involves experts and analysts who aim to develop resolutions for problems (Kingdon, 2014). In this ‘stream’ suggestions are provided for existing complications in society (Kingdon, 2014). Related to this stream, Kingdon (2014) refers to the ‘policy entrepreneur’, which is a person eager to strive for a certain complication to be addressed in ‘policies’ an entrepreneur believes in. The policy stream can be linked to theories divided under the RAM subchapter and the Leadership subchapter. Theories provided by Chafer (2016), Ralph (2011), and Kaarbo (2018) show that head of government has considerable influence on foreign policy making. Chafer (2016) points out that in case of France, Hollande made the final decision on the military intervention to Mali, and UK PM Blair pushed for military engagement in the Iraq war of 2003 (Ralph, 2011), which eventually happened. This can be linked to the policy stream because this entails policy making/agenda-setting of the leaders, which has to do amongst others with their pre-existent beliefs as results of Kaarbo (2018) show. Taking this information into account, the policy stream in combination with Leadership, is conceptualized as the policy entrepreneur. This could be any person who is involved in the policy making process on the specific military intervention. As mentioned earlier, the ‘policy entrepreneur’

(18)

18 could be anyone, inside or outside politics (Kingdon, 2014). By focusing on the policy entrepreneur, it would be possible to capture for instance whether Netherlands’ Prime Minister has a big role in this operation as existing theories of Chafer (2016), Kaarbo (2018), and Ralph (2011) suggest.

2.4.4 The Political Stream

This stream involves changes in society, such as a change in domestic acceptance of a certain problem, quick changes of common belief in society, outcomes of ‘elections’, replacement of a government, and lobby organizations pressing movements (Kingdon, 2014). Kingdon (2014) explains that makers use media reports to retrieve insight in the common belief in society, decision-makers (Kingdon, 2014). Kingdon (2014) clarifies that these media reports could therefore potentially influence what reaches the government agenda or not.

The sub-chapter on public opinion can be linked to this stream because it is about the changes in the domestic common belief in society (Kingdon, 2014). Furthermore, Kingdon (2014) provides a more specific definition on public opinion, which is that this can be defined as a ‘’rather vague mood in the country’’ (Kingdon, 2014, p.65). Public opinion can have both favorable or less favorable consequences (Kingdon, 2014).

Although it is possible that the public opinion may pressure the authorities to act, it is more likely that public opinion restrains authorities to take action (Kingdon 2014). This seems to be in line with the theories provided by Gribble, et al (2015), Haesebrouck (2019), and O’Connor and Vucetic (2010), who all seem to conclude that, although no general agreement is reached whether public opinion influences foreign policy making, public opinion may have a restraining effect. As Gribble, et al. (2015) point out, the negative perception of UK citizens on military interventions to Iraq in 2003 influences foreign policy making. Also information provided by van der Meulen and Vos (2008), who mention that if the situation in Uruzgan, Afghanistan, deteriorates, public opinion may develop into a certain ‘power factor’. Based on this, conceptualization used is the definition provided by Kingdon (2014), who defines public opinion as a ‘’rather vague mood in the country’’ (p. 65).

2.4.5 Policy Window

According to Kingdon (2014), each stream moves independently but do cross each other at crucial moments (Kingdon, 2014). This occurs when a complication occurs requiring recognition of the government (Kingdon, 2014). This may also result in a ‘policy window’ (Kingdon, 2014). In Kingdon’s (2014) theory, the reason why a policy window appears is because of change in the political or the problem stream (Kingdon, 2014). In addition, problems can also create ‘policy windows’ (Kingdon, 2014) This occurs for instance in case of a focusing event (Kingdon, 2014). Furthermore, Kingdon (2014) explains that these provide a possibility to give priority to a certain preference. The concept ‘policy

(19)

19 entrepreneur’ is shortly referred to earlier subchapter 2.4.4. The appearance of a policy window also provides a possibility for a policy entrepreneur (Kingdon, 2014). In case the policy entrepreneur has the answer to a certain problem, the entrepreneur may decide to try to press this solution through (Kingdon, 2014). According to Kingdon’s theory, to enter the policy ‘window’ one must act quickly because this ‘window’ only appears for a certain amount of time (Kingdon, 2014). The policy window could close because the complication may have been solved, and people engaged in this field are not active (Kingdon, 2014).

In this research, military interventions are considered ‘policy windows’. This thesis focuses on deciphering the factors that influence agenda-setting of The Netherlands on military interventions. In comparison, both the ‘policy window’ and the military interventions are the dependent variable. Whereas the three independent streams are in both cases the independent variables. Furthermore, just as the ‘policy window’, the possibility to decide to engage in a military intervention could open and close unexpectedly.

Therefore, it can be said that military interventions can be seen as a policy window by the Dutch government to promote their own interests abroad and on the international level. The expectation of this research is that factors in the problem stream and the policy stream influential regarding agenda-setting on military interventions, whereas the political stream (public opinion) is not. This would confirm theories provided by Kreps (2010) and van der Meulen and Vos (2008), that public opinion does not play an influential role in agenda-setting of a military intervention.

3. Research Design and Data Collection

In order to answer the research question, this chapter provides the research design, providing a detailed explanation how the research is carried out. This chapter is divided in sub-chapters. Firstly, operationalization of the three steams is explained. Subsequently, an explanation is given on the method used to collect data and on the chosen case studies. Thirdly, the chosen method of data analysis is clarified.

3.1 Operationalization of variables

Based on the conceptualizations provided in the theoretical framework, this paragraph describes how each concept is operationalized. By doing so, it would be possible to examine the extent to which the different strands of the theories through the three streams have been influential in agenda-setting of the Dutch government. This would provide insight into the factors influencing Netherlands’ agenda-setting on military operations, which are aimed to discover in this thesis.

(20)

20 The problem stream is operationalized by searching for the level of media attention given to a certain event/situation (the focusing event) for a certain time period. It is possible to state that, if a high level of media attention is given to an event, it has a severe impact on society and therefore possibly influences the agenda of the Dutch government. It depends on the crisis whether these situations/events endanger Netherlands safety and security.

The policy stream, linked to RAM and Leadership, is operationalized by searching in government documents and research provided by experts. By doing so, it may be possible to identify a certain person/group as the policy entrepreneur. Looking into these documents, it is possible to see whether a certain person is very much in favour of a certain policy outcome, and if for instance the leadership approach of the Prime Minister, or another influential decision-maker shine through. By diving into different types of government and policy documents, may be possible to discover whether/who is the policy entrepreneur in this case.

A limitation in this operationalization is that the possibility exists that someone can function as the policy entrepreneur but does not appear (much) in documents and debates. Also negotiations that took place off the record may be influential and may show a completely different policy entrepreneur in comparison to the - public - government documents. Other limitations are personal bias of the researcher. Although it is not possible to rule this out completely, a systematic way of examining the documents and searching for information is used. This is explained more profoundly in the sub-chapter 3.4 method of data analysis.

The political stream, linked to public opinion, is operationalized looking into statistics and reports on public opinion in The Netherlands. Different time periods are taken into account to see whether these change regarding military operations. A limitation of this approach is that statistics on public opinion have to be specifically focusing on the military intervention, or a related organization because the link between citizens and the military intervention has to be clear. In case it is not possible to find exact statistics/numbers/percentages on a certain case, looking into developments of general opinions on military operations could potentially be beneficial. This is because it would provide insight into citizens’ priorities and it would be possible to see whether the government took these priorities into account. Another limitation is that, in case a – strong - majority of the citizens is in favour, it does not mean that this also means that the government took public opinion into account.

(21)

21

3.2 Research Method

This sub-chapter explains how data is collected on the case studies. First and foremost, this chapter refers to the method of data collection used in this research. Secondly, I explain why the cases of Libya 2011, Mali 2013, and Iraq 2014 are chosen and the unit of analysis. Thirdly, this chapter discusses the reliability and validity in this research. Fourthly, the method of data analysis is discussed. Lastly, the empirical findings are documented. In this subchapter, I provide a thorough explanation of the method of data collection.

3.2.1 Method of Data Collection

The operationalization of the three streams already indicates the type of data collection that will be done. Data is collected through available databases, reports, statistics, and newspaper articles. This is elaborated on in subchapter 3.5 ‘Data Collection.

3.2.2 Case Selection and Unit of Analysis

In order to answer the research question ‘’Which factors influence Netherlands’ agenda-setting on military operations?’’, this research studies small-N comparative case studies. This approach is chosen for various reasons. As the theoretical framework already shows, small-N comparative or single case studies are used most frequently to answer questions related to this research. This is for instance shown by Gribble, et al (2015), Kreps (2010), Kaarbo (2018) and Haesebrouck (2019). These studies all focus on several military interventions. Furthermore, it is most beneficial to conduct a comparative case study to answer this research question, because the context is influential in this research area. Therefore, to retrieve insights in the process of agenda-setting by the Dutch government, a comparative in-depth analysis has the greatest potential to provide the best results. Subsequently, conducting an in-depth comparative case study using Kingdon’s (2014) theory makes it possible to see if/when/how a policy window opens when those streams cross each other and see whether comparable results are retrieved. The results are compared to discover whether there are similarities and/or significant differences in factors that influence Netherlands’ agenda-setting on military interventions.

Three contemporary cases are chosen as the unit of analysis, namely Libya 2011 (Operation Unified Protector Libya), Mali 2014 (MINUSMA), and Iraq 2014 (fight IS). These cases are chosen because these seem to have received a high level of media attention, which would be beneficial for the collection of newspaper articles and statistics on public opinion.

(22)

22 The cases also occurred quite recently, but not too recent, which makes it easier to obtain information such as newspaper articles. Because of this, it is also easier to make a comparison because the national, global, and political situation are similar. Even though elections were held in 2012, meaning that the Dutch government existed of a different composition in 2011 compared to 2014 and 2015, the same Prime Minister was in place.

Despite these similarities, also differences between the cases can be identified. Firstly, Netherlands’ objectives are different for every case. Other differences are the countries these Dutch troops are send to, the international organization organizing the operation, past involvement of the Netherlands in a country, and the extent to which The Netherlands is affected by the conflict. Also duration and termination of the operations are different; the military operations in Libya and Mali already terminated whereas the operation to Iraq is ongoing until 2021. By studying each case in-depth, taking Kingdon’s (2014) three streams into account, it is possible to discover whether there are factors that always play an important role in agenda-setting on these or whether this is always different.

3.2.3 Reliability and Validity

‘Reliability’ is about the regularity of the object/situation that is examined (Neuman, 2014). This means that by using the same type of documents, a similar outcome should be retrieved. However, as mentioned by Neuman (2014), the limitation in ‘qualitative research’ with reliability is that the situation may change which could also have consequences for the measurements initially chosen. This applies to this research because the possibility exists that changes could be made into documents, especially newspaper articles, over a certain time. Furthermore, the situation may change completely in a couple of years making the measurements used in this study less accurate.

As Neuman (2014) mentions, it is important to document the empirical findings as systematic as possible. This is done in this research by mentioning exactly where data comes from, the words that have been searched for, and the results that appeared. An explanation is also given why each piece is chosen. Even though it may not be possible to retrieve the ideal level of reliability, this research strives to reach the highest level of reliability possible.

‘Validity’ refers to preciseness of a method (Middleton, 2020). By using a small-N comparative research methodology, this usually means that a greater degree of ‘internal validity’ is retrieved (Leiden University, n.d). This is not the case for ‘external validity, which usually does not reach a high degree in this type of research (Leiden University, n.d).

(23)

23 Whereas ‘high internal validity’ focuses on the ‘causal relationship’ and makes sure that only this relationship is studied, ‘external validity’ is about the use of the findings and how this is ‘generalizable’ to other researches (Streefkerk, 2019). As mentioned by Leiden University (n.d.), the findings retrieved in this thesis likely have high ‘internal validity’ because the research focuses on the factors that are potentially most influential in agenda-setting. Regarding ‘external validity’, the findings are not likely to be generalizable to other cases because these are too much dependent on the context.

3.4 Method of Data Analysis

The documents retrieved are examined through document analysis. Bowen (2009) defines ‘document analysis’ as a methodical process to analyse ‘documents’. Based on Corbin and Strauss (2008) and Rapley (2007), Bowen (2009) provides an explanation on the methodological objectives of document analysis. For ‘document analysis’, it is needed that the information retrieved is examined, perceived, and explained (Bowen, 2009). This is done to retrieve better insight, to provide a contribution to ‘empirical’ information, and to unveil signification (Bowen, 2009). Bowen (2009) mentions that ‘documents analysis’ is about ‘skimming’, ‘reading’, and ‘interpretation’ (p. 32). Additionally, Bowen (2009) refers to Labuschagne (2003), mentioning that this type of examination provides information which is subsequently divided accordingly by using ‘content analysis’.

Bowen’s (2009) explanation shows why this method of analysis is suitable for this thesis. As Bowen (2009) explains, ‘documents’ present insight into what the situation and circumstances looked like in the past. As explained earlier this chapter, the context and circumstances are important in this type of research. By conducting document analysis, it is possible to track these circumstances down and see, for instance, what the general tendency looked like in the past. Furthermore, this research gathers a large amount of documents, especially newspaper articles and government documents. Therefore, Bowen’s (2009) steps are taken into account when analysing the documents.

Regarding the selection of the documents – in this case newspaper articles, policy documents, and information on public opinion – Bowen (2009) mentions that attention should be paid to the ‘authenticity’, ‘credibility’, ‘accuracy’, and ‘representativeness’ (p. 33). Furthermore, it is important that the documents chosen do cover – partially – the topic, and whether these provide much information on a certain characteristic or provide a more broad view on different characteristics (Bowen, 2009). In this thesis, it could for instance be the case that one newspaper article solely focuses on the safety characteristics of the military intervention, whereas another newspaper articles focuses more on different characteristics of the intervention.

(24)

24 Subsequently, in order to examine the documents properly, Bowen (2009) mentions that it is important to know the objective of the documents and its ‘target audience’ (p. 33). Bowen (2009) also addresses the number of ‘documents’ that should be used. As the author mentions, this depends on the ‘quality’ of the gathered articles (Bowen, 2009). In addition to this, Bowen (2009) mentions that it is important to include many different articles. In this research, it is possible to state that many different types of articles are included in order to examine different aspects of the research question and of Kingdon’s (2014) multiple stream framework.

In order to avoid personal bias when reading the documents, keywords are used to search through these documents and databases. Especially for government documents use of keywords is important because often varying subjects are discussed in these documents. By using these keywords, it is possible to discover persons who appear often in the debates, and to discover their preferences/interests/favours coming through as systematic as possible. Although personal bias of the researcher can never be ruled out, by examining the documents systematically and read every piece on the military intervention, it is possible to rule this personal bias out the best way possible, because all documents are researched in a similar way.

3.5 Data Collection

In this subchapter, I present the empirical data in order to show how each of the ‘’streams’’ are operating in the case of Dutch foreign policy. To this end, I lay out the information that I have collected in different tables. These tables (numbers 1-10) are attached at the Appendices at the back of the report. To ensure verifiability and transparency, I also underscore the key words I used in order to reach the string of documents the reader can see below. This is especially important in case of the policy documents, the newspaper articles, and the COB reports. It is also explained how additional information is found.

Several articles that apply Kingdon’s (2014) ‘Multiple Streams Framework’ to unravel decisions made by the government are used to provide a justification of the distinction made between the three streams in this thesis regarding data collection.

The article provided by De Wals, Espinoza-Moya, and Béland (2019) uses Kingdon’s theory to retrieve insight into the approval of certain measures by the government. The authors make a distinction between Kingdon’s ‘three streams’ (De Wals, et al., 2019). For this case, which focuses on the so-called ‘immunization policy’, the authors divide the three streams as following: the problem stream focuses on sicknesses that could be avoided by using medication (De Wals, et al., Béland, 2019).

(25)

25 Furthermore, the policy stream focuses on how the ‘immunization program’ could function as a resolution (De Wals, et al., 2019). Lastly, regarding the political stream, the idea for this new ‘immunization’ plan should become known in society (De Wals, et al., 2019). Subsequently, by focusing on the ‘policy window’, the authors explain how the three streams possibly cross (De Wals, et al., 2019). Also the role of the policy entrepreneur is explained in this case (De Wals, et al., 2019). This approach used by De Wals, et al. (2019) provides insight into how a distinction can be made between the three streams, which later shows the crossing of the policy window or not. This article provides more general knowledge on the application of Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’, the same type of application is done by the subsequent authors. However, these authors also mention the empirical data gathered to be able to analyse the three streams.

Llamosas, Upham, and Blanco (2018) conduct research on the procedure of establishing policies regarding ‘energy’ in Paraguay, using Kingdon’s multiple stream framework to analyse this phenomena (Llamosas, et al., 2018). The authors make use of different types of empirical evidence, namely ‘newspaper articles’, several judicial and government documents, numerical data provided by authorities, and interviews (Llamosas, et al., 2018). The authors mention that the newspaper articles are used to retrieve a clear overview when certain events happened (Llamosas, et al., 2018). Comparing these newspaper articles to the other documents, the authors mention that it is possible to single out the occurring ‘policy window’, the ‘focusing events’, and ‘policy proposals and ideas’ (Llamosas, et al., 2018). In comparison, the scholarly thesis of Saikaly (2009) focuses on the United States and the process of how the ‘decision’ was reached regarding ‘Iraq 2003’. In order to do so, Saikaly (2009) uses amongst others Kingdon’s ‘multiple streams framework’ to examine this case. Saikaly (2009) focuses on several concept of Kingdon’s theory to examine the case. First and foremost, specific attention is given on the discovery of the ‘focusing event’ (Saikaly, 2009). In order to discover the focusing event, Saikaly (2009) uses ‘articles’ published by the most dominant ‘newspapers’ in the United States. The author mentions that the amount of articles published by, in this case ‘The New York Times, provides a clear view of the main subjects discussed in the news (Saikaly, 2009). Furthermore, in order to discover the general tendency regarding ‘military’ involvement in the United States in Iraq, Saikaly (2009) makes use of polls and numbers to capture this general tendency in society. Furthermore, Saikaly (2009) focuses on the role of the ‘policy entrepreneur’, and to other concepts related to Kingdon (2014).

(26)

26 Each article shows that several concepts of Kingdon’s (2014) ‘multiple streams framework’ is applied in different ways. Despite the fact that each article focuses on a different subject, the application of Kingdon’s (2014) theory is similar. Each article focuses on each stream separately, and subsequently, focuses on the appearance of the ‘policy window. Further elaboration on the operationalization of each stream is described in each stream.

3.5.1 Problem Stream

As mentioned earlier, the problem stream is operationalized by using newspaper articles to unravel what type of ‘focusing event’ took place. This is also in line with Saikaly (2009) and Llamosas, Upham, and Blanco (2018), who also used newspaper articles to discover the focusing event. However, it is possible to unravel a difference in how the authors approached the use of newspaper articles in comparison to this thesis. Whereas Llamosas, Upham, and Blanco (2018) use newspaper article to retrieve more insight into when events happened, Saikaly (2009) uses the newspaper articles to confirm a focusing event, and discover the amount of people who followed these newspaper articles on the focusing event. Taking this into account, this thesis uses a combination of articles provided by the three largest Dutch newspapers: de Telegraaf, de Volkskrant, and the AD (NOM, 2019). These newspapers also show differences in political orientations. Whereas de Volkskrant originally merely leans toward the left side of the political spectrum (Melod, 2014), de Telegraaf is merely considered an activist newspaper (NOS, 2018). The AD is considered a more neutral newspaper (Melod, 2014).

Also research provided by researcher Maurice de Hond, published by the AD, shows the political preferences of readers of certain newspapers (AD, 2016). Readers of de Volkskrant mainly tend to vote for Dutch Labour Party PvdA, whereas readers of the Telegraaf mainly lean towards voting for the Party for Freedom, PVV (AD, 2016). Readers of AD tend to vote for the Liberals, VVD, and the Conservatives (AD, 2016). Based on this information, it is possible to assume that these different newspapers have a large but different scope. Therefore, these newspapers are chosen to examine because in case all three newspapers provide articles on a certain event more or less at the same point in time, it would be possible to unravel whether potentially a ‘focusing event’ took place. Subsequently, examining three newspapers and the articles published in a certain time frame, is considered feasible regarding the scope of this thesis and the amount of time available.

Regarding the time frame chosen for the problem stream, close attention is paid to the government documents. The leading document for this time period is the publication of the article 100 letter of the Dutch government. This document is taken as a starting point because this is the moment that the decision was made by Dutch the government.

(27)

27 In this document, reasons are also provided why the Dutch administration decided to participate in the military operation. These are usually quite general statements, however, certain guidelines are provided into the interest of the government and possible occurrences that may have taken place and have been influential.

Taking this into account, from the moment of publication, newspaper articles are traced back. By doing so, also close attention is paid to other government documents published, which are examined for the Policy Stream, to identify the potential policy entrepreneur and Rutte’s role and preferences. These government documents do also provide insight into when certain events occur and if these are mentioned in government documents and/or debates.

On a practical note, the newspaper articles are reached through Nexis Uni. By entering a keyword, as mentioned in the table below, the chosen timeframe, and by choosing the newspaper, it is possible to retrieve a complete overview of the articles written by the chosen newspapers. A large amount of newspaper articles is gathered for each newspaper and for each case through the keyword used. The main subject, title, date of publication, and other information is written down. Then, subsequently, the articles of the different newspapers are compared in order to discover similarities between the publications regarding certain events.

Obviously, the search information used is different for each case. For the Libya case, the time period chosen is January, February, and March 2011. This because the article 100 letter was published at the end of March, and government documents started talking about occurrences in Libya mid-February. Secondly, for the Mali case, the time frame chosen is different in comparison to Libya. This is because before the start of MINUSMA, the French intervened in Mali in January 2013. Lastly, for the case of Iraq, the Article 100 letter was provided by the Dutch government September 24 2014. Since this moment, this was traced back taking the available government documents into account.

Appendix 1 at the back of the report shows in tables 1, 2, and 3 the collected newspaper articles and where/how these are found for each case. As mentioned, the documents are searched through Nexis Uni. The details mentioned in tables 1, 2, and 3 can be used to find each document.