Decoding the Darfur conflict

This study uses frame analysis to examine how the New York Times framed the conflict in the Sudanese region of Darfur. A qualitative content analysis of the New York Times editorials (52 editorials) between 2003 and 2008 reveals a simplistic and reductionist framing of the conflict. Most of the New York Times’ depictions framed the conflict as an ethnic strife between ‘Arab’ invaders and ‘African’ victims. The New York Times blamed ‘the Arab-dominated’ Sudanese government for backing the Janjaweed (local Arab militia), called for more sanctions against the Sudanese government and demanded the bringing of war criminals to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To its credit, the New York Times highlighted vital humanitarian aspects of the conflict, yet failed to recognize its local intricacies and root causes. The author argues that the only viable solution to the conflict in Darfur will be a fair and equitable negotiated peace settlement between the Sudanese parties to the conflict

Conflict resolution · Criminology · Framing (construction · Geography · Political science · Sanctions · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Global Security and Public Health · Health and Conflict Studies · Law