Somalia: Creating Space for Fresh Approaches to Peacebuilding

jessica brandwein
22 See ““You Don’t Know Who To
Blame”: War Crimes in Somalia”,
Human Rights Watch, August
2011, Available online
23 Note that there are many
purposes for framing an issue in a
particular way, with the preference
for peace journalism reflecting
one vision of the media’s purpose
– that is to aid in peacebuilding
activities. Media consumers
have different expectations for
how their news is presented
based on their understanding
of the purpose of the outlet. For
those consumers who do expect
media to play a substantive and
responsible role in peacebulding,
the use of peace journalism is one
way in which this can be achieved.
58
so in the context of terrorism or al-Qaeda supporters. 35 percent of articles from
allAfrica.com sources also frame al-Shabaab in the same way. When African
news outlets are not relating al-Shabaab to terrorism, they are generally focused
on the group’s participation in battles, its human rights violations, and its Islamic
fundamentalist ideology. This depiction of al-Shabaab as an extremist enemy
rather than a potential partner for engagement in peace limits the world’s view of
how peacebuilding should be taking place in Somalia. Specifically, this framing
reinforces policies of non-engagement, making local peacebuilding efforts that
attempt to bring al-Shabaab together with other groups more difficult. Additionally,
the castigation of al-Shabaab masks the wrong doing of other actors who are
contributing to the suffering of the people and whose actions also undermine the
prospects for peace. 22
Peace journalism also emphasizes opportunities for peace as opposed to solely
focusing on consequences of violence. It is clear to see from the framing results
on peace that the NYT fails in this aspect of peace journalism, being nearly three
times as likely to talk about civil wars or humanitarian crises than peace processes,
and almost eight times more likely to refer to terrorism. 23 AllAfrica.com is
more successful in this avenue, referring to peace processes more often than civil
war, and almost as often as humanitarian crises or terrorism. However, because
of the methods used to gather this data, it is impossible to know whether the
articles were referring to peace processes in a positive or negative way. In order to
really understand whether the African sources are promoting peace through their
journalism, or contributing to the pessimistic view of Somalia by focusing on the
negative aspects of peace processes, further research needs to be done.
Further research and recommendations
While this paper has provided a broad description of the different ways in which
Somalia has been portrayed by the African and Western press, in order to determine
the actual effects the media has had on local and international peacebuilding
more research must be completed. This includes the reading of articles to
determine tone and orientation in addition to mere key word searches. At the
least however, with the data available, it is clear that the Western media as represented
by the coverage in the NYT has conformed to the US government’s view
of Somalia as a safe haven and breeding ground for terrorists that serves as a
threat to the national security of Western states. By framing Somalia, and particularly
al-Shabaab within the broader context of terrorism, the NYT has supported
and legitimized US policies of military intervention in Somalia, while justifying
the lack of meaningful engagement in the country with peacebuilding issues.
The reinforcement of this frame by the African media, as represented by
allAfrica.com’s sources, and particularly in their one-sided portrayal of al-Shabaab,
provides no alternative narrative that supports local peacebuilders trying to engage
with the insurgent group. In order to change this pattern, the blind spot in media
coverage of local and community led peacebuilding efforts, along with the positive
contributions that al-Shabaab made to society within Southern Somalia need to