Political leaders chose moral messaging after downing of MH17 and attacks in Belgium
What words do politicians choose when an attack shakes society? PhD candidate Daan van den Wollenberg studied how Prime Minister Rutte responded to the downing of MH17, and the message Prime Minister Michel conveyed to the public after the attacks at Zaventem Airport and in Brussels.
18 juli 2014, the day after flight MH17 was shot down.
‘Let one thing be crystal clear: we want to get to the bottom of this. And if it turns out that this was an attack, I will personally ensure that those responsible are tracked down and punished as they deserve. We will not rest until then. We owe this to the innocent victims and their families.’
These were the impassioned words of Prime Minister Mark Rutte at a press conference following the downing of MH17 over eastern Ukraine. All 298 people on board were killed, including 196 Dutch nationals.
22 maart 2016, the day IS terrorists carried out attacks on Zaventem Airport and a Brussels metro station.
‘We will defend and protect our values and freedom. We are confronted with a barbaric enemy. But we are determined and united.’
Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel posted this message on Twitter in response to the attacks, which left 32 people dead and around 340 injured.
Word choice and framing
Word choice and framing reveal the meaning political leaders attach to a disaster or attack. ‘Their response help legitimise the way a crisis is managed’, says Van den Wollenberg. International research into the language used in such situations often highlights the nationalist and religious messages politicians convey when responding to sudden and profound crises.
Van den Wollenberg analysed speeches and public statements from the first five years following both crises, and interviewed Dutch and Belgian ministers, including Stef Blok (Foreign Affairs) and Koen Geens (Justice). Although he was unable to interview Rutte and Michel themselves, he did speak to their closest advisers and spokespeople from the time.
Moral messaging
In both crises, the politicians primarily chose moral messaging, emphasising the values and conditions they considered important for society. ‘In the case of MH17’, says Van den Wollenberg, ‘Rutte focused on three things: bringing our people home and thereby restoring the victims’ dignity, seeking transparency and pursuing justice.’
Importance of freedom
In Belgium, Prime Minister Michel emphasised the moral importance of freedom in response to the terrorist attacks carried out by IS supporters. ‘Politicians viewed these attacks as an assalut on their free way of life, which therefore had to be defended’, says Van den Wollenberg. Michel also stressed the importance of transparency: people needed clear information to understand what had happened and how it could have occurred.
Religion deliberately avoided
Religion played almost no role in the speeches of Dutch and Belgian politicians, says Van den Wollenberg. Such references do not fit the prevailing political culture in either country. Moreover, invoking religion can exclude certain groups or fuel polarisation. ‘The attacks in Zaventem and Maalbeek were carried out by Muslim extremists. Despite this, the religious aspect was deliberately left unmentioned.’
Nationalism
Van den Wollenberg also identified nationalist undertones in the statements. Dutch and Belgian leaders drew on a shared sense of national experience mainly in the immediate aftermath of the crises, and later during commemorations. According to Van den Wollenberg, politicians also adopted a national perspective more frequently in the international arena to keep the issues high on the international agenda.
They also referred more explicitly to authoritative institutions such as the United Nations in an international context. After the MH17 disaster, this was done to remind Russia of its obligations under a UN Security Council resolution, he notes.
Emotional speech
One speech that stood out was the powerful address given by Frans Timmermans, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the UN Security Council on 21 July 2014. Through an emotional description of the passengers’ possible final moments, he made an urgent appeal to the Ukrainian and Russian authorities to repatriate the victims’ remains and establish the truth.
‘Since Thursday I've been thinking how horrible the final moments of their lives must have been, when they knew the plane was going down. Did they lock hands with their loved ones, did they hold their children close to their hearts, did they look each other in the eyes, one final time, in a wordless goodbye? We will never know.’
Controversial
Not everyone appreciated the speech’s painfully vivid imagery, Van den Wollenberg notes. In the Netherlands, many felt that Timmermans had captured the public mood in Dutch society remarkably well.
‘However, his emotional address did not go down well with some of his colleagues on the Security Council. The US Permanent Representative called the speech “incredible”, while her Australian counterpart, Julie Bishop, was moved to tears. Her emotional reaction made it difficult for her to continue participating in the meeting.’
According to Van den Wollenberg, the speech also provoked strong reactions among some of the victims’ relatives. ‘For some, it made imagining their loved ones’ final moments even more distressing.’