Alexandra Trustman
Global Media
Balkan Effect
Professor Der Derian

Thematic Essay: Is the Camera a Humanitarian Tool?

The Balkan Effect refers to how the media was used to influence and represent the ethnic conflict and civil wars that took place in the Balkan Peninsula during the last decade of the twentieth century. The two wars that are referenced specifically are that in Bosnia between 1992-1995 and in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. “After the Gulf War, Bosnia became the most televised, most real-time, most virtualized conflict of the nineties” (Der Derian, 50). Thus, the camera—as the instrument of television, real-time feed and even still photographic images—became responsible for constructing a perception of the war to those abroad, both by increasing awareness and in its potential mission to effect change. This marriage between the “virtual,” war represented and exposed through new technologies, and “virtue,” morally sound behavior, creates what Der Derian coins as “Virtuous War,” war represented through technology that works to raise ethical consciousness and to evoke change based on this new found ethical awareness. Is Virtuous War as Der Derian outlines it, possible? Can visual and virtual exposure to war galvanize people to act in a positive humanitarian way? Is that even the camera’s role? Through a study of the Balkan Wars it becomes apparent that the camera has the potential to effect change, but is limited by its inherent positioning of the spectator.
In his article “Atrocity, memory, photography: imaging the concentration camps of Bosnia—the Case of ITN versus Living Marxism, Part 2” David Campbell explores the dispute between LM’s Thomas Deichmann and Michael Hume and ITN’s Penny Marshall and Ian Williams over a photographic still from some footage shot at Trnopoljie, a Bosnian concentration camp. The photograph was of an emaciated prisoner, Fikret Alic, and was used as evidence to prove “the Bosnian Serb authorities’ ethnic cleansing strategy that lay at the heart of the war” (Campbell, 143). It is thought that this photograph, taken as “proof” is “an example of the demonization of the entire Serbian people by the Western media, for the purposes of making US military intervention necessary and inevitable” (Campbell,143). The still was taken from footage that was included in Britain’s Independent Television News report in August 1992. Thus its purpose was to inform England about the conflict in Bosnia. Whether the segment’s intent was to invoke humanitarian action as well is unclear, however if this photograph is in any way responsible for Western military action to help end the conflict in Bosnia, as implied in the Campbell article, it does become humanitarian in use. This position is complicated however, by Deichmann and Hume’s stance for they challenge its accuracy in its link to a system of ideology. Deichmann argues that the Holocaust, as an event that has become naturalized is signified by the combination of emancipated prisoners and barbed wire. He takes issue with this comparison—although potentially unintended and unavoidable by the photographer—for in his view it “demonizes” the Serbs. S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, admits that “to sell a war in a democracy when you’re not attacked, you have to demonize the leader to show that there are humanitarian reasons for going in” (Knightley, 502). Deichmann is not wrong to criticize American or Western use of images to demonize, however, he is unfounded in his accusation that the photograph purposefully invokes Nazism. In terms of the ethical question, which Deichmann touches on but is unable to fully communicate— Is over exaggeration of the enemy justified if the end is humanitarian action? Is the ethical outcome of the camera’s use undermined if this initial exaggeration is used to gain political support at home as Lichter suggests, as opposed to being specifically for change in light of humanitarian cause?
The ITN/LM conflict is only further complicated when considering whether “Virtuous War” is actually virtuous. In his book “First Casualty” Phillip Knightley notes that despite “the revolution in communications technology—instant television links from the front to the studio and between correspondents in the field; electronic transmission of still photographs and the internet— that should have provided the public with an unprecedented overview of the war… instead the public drowned in wave after wave of images that added up to nothing” (Knightley, 504). The over saturation of images not only overwhelms the public, but ironically prevents the communication of significant information. This lack of meaningful knowledge in turn creates a state of stagnancy, where spectators do not act. In this way the camera fails as a humanitarian tool for it stirs no attempt or effort for change. This sentiment is further addressed in Thomas Keenan’s essay “Publicity and Indifference: media, surveillance, ‘humanitarian intervention.’” Keenan quotes the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Lustiger as saying, “Here there are no secrets. There are journalists here, from here pictures are transmitted, there are satellite communications, all of this is known. In this city there are soldiers of the United Nations, well armed, and nonetheless it all continues to happen” (Keenan, 2). Mark Danner reinforces Lustiger’s claim, stating, “what we did and didn’t do with what we saw was all the less forgivable, because we could see” (Keenan, 3). Much of this lack of motivation to act humanitarianly can be attributed to the way in which the camera positions spectators. While live feed works to collapse the reality represented on television with our own reality, this convergence is constantly being mediated, and as “mediated images of the world are mere representations that lend an air of unreality to the things that they represent” spectators find themselves positioned outside of the reality they are consuming (Keenan, 8). Keenan mentions Baudrillard’s view that “the West has to watch helplessly,” it seems however, that this helplessness is not a choice, but rather is forced upon the spectators by nature of the new technology (Keenan, 9).
This idea is furthered in Keenan’s essay by citing Paul Virillio, who explains how the virtuality of television works to strip spectators of their agency and points out that as television moves at the speed of light “we no longer have time to reflect; the things we see have already taken place. And we must act immediately” (Keenan, 6). The simultaneous need and inability to act once again renders spectators helpless. Here what the camera transmits is of no consequence, because the way in which it is transmitted, the very speed that makes television possible, paradoxically prevents it from catalyzing humanitarian efforts.
The camera can potentially work as a humanitarian tool, but ultimately it is the person behind the camera who has the choice whether or not to use the camera for an ethical cause. Live-feed news on major broadcast networks, has serious constraints, namely capitalist and governmental and unfortunately these don’t often coincide with humanitarian endeavors. The Balkan Effect, or Balkanization refers to when great powers interfere with smaller powers in order to preserve their superiority. Just as the camera can potentially be used humanitarianly, it can also be manipulated to contribute to maintaining western hegemony, and more often than not is used in this way. Live-feed news is interference in small nations itself, for depending on the choice and context of footage television manipulates its viewer and functions as propaganda for a particular perspective. The way in which both Milosevic and the Serbs were demonized is an example of how television can impinge on the events of other nations. States function in their own national interest, thus it is possible that Western countries whose hegemony benefits from the turmoil of smaller nations, like Britain and the U.S. would cover the conflicts such as those in the Balkans with less of an urgency to help in some kind of humanitarian way. The only real way to prevent this is through supra-organizations like NATO and the UN for they claim to work in the favor of the majority of represented nations. However, as seen in the failed assassination of Aleksander Vucic and ultimate inability to solve the conflict, NATO worked more in the interest of NATO rather than in Kosovo’s favor. There may be no way of escaping bias then, even within supra-structures. However, when it comes to news broadcasting the camera is seen as contriving a point of view. This perspective, however is always subject to change given the intentions of the user. Despite any potential political agendas that can sway the function of the camera, it is also important to recognize thayjt there is something inherent to the medium of television, both in its functionality and through its implicated agendas that prevents it from ever creating a truly “Virtuous War.”