Since the end of the cold war, the Uppsala Conflict Data Programm identified 138 distinct armed conflicts. On average, there were 38 different ongoing conflicts each year. That western countries want to engage with many of these in some way is common knowledge. But, why do some of them capture the attention of foreign policymakers, while others are neglected, disregarded, or simply forgotten? What guides the selective and often erratic gaze of western policymakers? This paper argues that media discourses about these foreign armed conflicts play a crucial role and presents systematic empirical evidence to improve our understanding of the dynamics between media and foreign policy. The paper analyses the foreign policy agendas and media discourses of the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom with regard to the 30 most intense armed conflicts between 1999 and 2007. Analyzing the framing of these conflicts in more than 100.000 newspaper articles, I argue that ideas from cognitive psychology and constructivist notions about the national interest are consistently better at explaining foreign policy agendas than ‘material interests’ or ‘objective facts’. With this, I exemplify how discursive approaches can help us to appreciate the dynamic and changing nature of foreign policymaking.
