Elective assignment A flag adorned with virus

molecules
A visual security study of Jyllands-
Posten’s drawing of the Chinese flag

Nanna-Katrine Gram-Lange 12-05-1992

STROKES:35934
Content
Introduction: “It’s just a drawing…”................................................................................................. 2
Literature review .............................................................................................................................. 2
Theoretical framework and methodological approach ................................................................... 3
Image agency ............................................................................................................................... 3
Three step-framework for visual analysis .................................................................................... 4
Case overview .................................................................................................................................. 6
3-step analysis of the visual securitization process ......................................................................... 8
Step 1. Strategies of depiction and the immediate intertext ...................................................... 8
Step 2. The genre of cartooning .................................................................................................. 9
Step 3. The cultural context: immediacy, circulability, and ambiguity ...................................... 11
Crisis or not: a question of context? .............................................................................................. 14
What cannot be learned from this analysis and conclusion .......................................................... 15
Literature............................................................................................................................................ 16

1
Introduction: “It’s just a drawing…”
On the 27th of January, Jyllands-Posten printed an editorial cartoon picturing the Chinese flag with
Coronavirus molecules instead of stars. This started a chain-reaction which led to a demand for
apology from the Chinese Embassy in Denmark and an official statement from the Danish prime
minister stressing the press freedom in Denmark. To the average Danish observer, the drawing
may not seem all that offensive. In fact, many comments in media and on Facebook pointed out
how it is “just a drawing”, and that many satirical cartoons are printed in Danish newspapers every
day. But if the drawing is indeed just a drawing, why did it cause such a strong reaction from Chi-
nese actors? And are visual objects, ambiguous in their nature, ever just one thing?

In this paper, I apply Lene Hansen’s framework from 2011 to analyse how the drawing from
Jyllands-Posten did securitization by asking how a satirical drawing of the Chinese flag in a Danish
newspaper suddenly came to be shared in media across borders, why it caused the Chinese Gov-
ernment to set demands of an apology to Jyllands-Posten, and why many Chinese citizens reacted
strongly to the drawing. The framework was initially developed with the Muhammad drawings as
inspirational source, and since the two cases hold similar starting points, a similar investigation
strategy can be fruitful. The paper is based on poststructuralist approaches, which are often ap-
plied in critical security studies concerning visuality. First, a review of existing literature within vis-
uality and securitization is carried out. Then, the theoretical and methodological approach of the
paper is presented, followed by an overview of the case. Following this comes the analysis which is
structured in three steps after Hansen’s recommendations. Finally, a brief discussion of the mean-
ing of temporal context and the limitations of visual studies such as this one is carried out, finish-
ing with a conclusion which sums up the main findings.

Literature review
The scientific field within international relations that investigates visuality in relation to security is
limited. The systematic study of securitization of images is mainly located within poststructuralist
approaches, but few general methodological frameworks, which can be used to analyse the secu-
ritization process of visuals, have been suggested. Substantial case studies have, however, been
conducted, analysing specific events within the security-political spectrum in connection to visual

2
artefacts, for example how private photographs of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse led to political reac-
tions in Western countries (Laustsen, 2008, Shepherd, 2008), how icons designed to reinforce or-
ganizational messages, like The Doomsday Clock, can visualize securitization issues (Vuori, 2010),
how mistreatment of the woman body was used to justify the war in Afghanistan (Heck and
Schlag, 2013), and how remembrance of 9/11 was shaped and shared through public and private
photography (Möller, 2007). Though these all contribute with valuable knowledge concerning spe-
cific cases, it is difficult to compare their findings to each other to say something general (and per-
haps it is even unnecessary). Yet, when dealing with a satiric drawing printed in Jyllands-Posten, it
seems oblivious to ignore the Muhammad Drawings from 2005, which hold similarities in their re-
ception and were printed in the same newspaper. Because the Corona-flag drawing is a very new
case, its position within security studies has not yet been investigated. It seems clear, however,
that a framework designed to analyse the Muhammad drawings would be useful to study the Co-
rona-flag drawing as well. Therefore, the framework laid out by Hansen in 2011 appears an obvi-
ous place to start, also due to her prominent role within visual security studies. In Hansen’s study,
the suggested framework is firstly presented and then demonstrated through an analysis of the
securitization process of the Muhammad Drawings. This way, Hansen shows how her framework
can be used to highlight how images can speak for themselves inside the discourses they operate
within. In relation to Hansen’s framework, Andersen, Vuori and Mutlu (2015) suggest that a strong
empirical orientation is needed when studying visuality, both in relation to security matters and
otherwise. By stating this, they highlight that a general framework of analysis is not always appli-
cable in visual security studies. However, since the two cases so closely related by visual genre and
security issue (both have led to diplomatic crisis though they differ largely in volume), viewing
them within the same methodological framework can contribute to valuable knowledge about im-
ages and securitization, both empirically and methodologically.

Theoretical framework and methodological approach

Image agency
Because visuality is mainly a theoretical concept investigated by scholars of poststructuralism, it is
not surprising that the discourses the images exist and operate within are granted attention. In-
deed, prominent visual scholars such as Jacques Ranciére and W.J.T Mitchell argue that one

3
cannot separate images from their context. However, the two disagree on whether images have
their own agency or merely serve as objects applied within discourses by human actors to stress
their messages (Mitchell, 2009, Ranciére, 2009). Whereas Ranciére mainly believes that visuals are
applied to support existing structures, and thus can be used differently but never separated from
human intention, Mitchell argues that images sometimes cause unexpected events to take place,
and that they are capable of changing or rejecting existing discourses independently of the wishes
of their creators or senders (Mitchell, 2009). He agrees that our interpretation of images depend
on the discourse they are viewed within, but he assigns them their own agency in the sense that
they sometimes act beyond what humans want them to by “behav[ing] like viruses that spread
and mutate faster than our immune systems can evolve to fight them off”, and that images often
wait to unfold their messages until the time is ready for them (Mitchell, 2009). Thus, Mitchell
views images as actors rather than passive objects, which corresponds well with cases like the one
of the Muhammad Drawings (and possibly the Corona-flag case, which will be further investigated
later on). In Hansens article from 2011, she indeed argues that it was not Jyllands-Posten’s inten-
tion to create a diplomatic crisis. The drawings were created to illustrate an article concerning an
alleged fear in the Media World of depicting Islam-related topics, and probably no one expected
them to backlash as majorly as it did (though the newspaper did know that their drawings could be
perceived as provocative). Indeed, this case then supports Mitchell’s stand on visual agency. Be-
cause of the empirical similarities between the Muhammad crisis and the reactions to the drawing
of the Chinese flag, this position is also applied in this paper. To investigate how an image be-
comes a security issue, it seems clear that the image must be considered more proactive than
merely a tool within existing discourses. To deprive it of this could lead to loss of valuable infor-
mation about how visuality interacts with World politics, which is the opposite of what is desired.

Three step-framework for visual analysis

To analyse the securitization of the Corona flag-drawing, Lene Hansens framework from her 2011-
article is, as mentioned, applied. The main assumptions and steps of this framework is laid out in
the following.

4
Hansen suggest that the capacity of the image to speak securitization should be analysed carefully
and within context. This means that one should consider whether the visual securitizes on its own
or if it depends on someone else. An example of the latter would be a situation where a securitiz-
ing actor claims that the image demonstrates a safety threat and requires immediate response
(Hansen, 2011). Hansen’s approach to this rests on the study of the image itself, its immediate in-
tertext, the wider policy discourse and the text ascribing meaning to the image. Thus, she argues
that an image must be studied within its given context to achieve meaningful insight to its securiti-
zation process. When these four components are held at eye, the ability of the image to speak se-
curity, dependent or independent of other actors, is unveiled. The four components are investi-
gated through three steps of analysis.

Firstly, she encourages the researcher to ask how immediacy, circulability, and ambiguity impact
the processes of securitization in the given case. This question stems from the assumption that vis-
ual securitization differs from linguistic because images accentuates these very three concepts.
Immediacy covers the emotional impact the given image has on the observer, circulability repre-
sents the speed and ease images travel with; images are easy to share and travel easily beyond lin-
guistic barriers (though their original messages might be misunderstood), and ambiguity highlights
how the same symbols might be perceived quite differently in different contexts, which can lead
to cases like the Muhammad crisis (Hansen, 2011). To investigate visual securitization, the image
then must be viewed on its own theoretical premises and not just those applied in classical dis-
course analyses.

Next, Hansen recommends studying the strategies of depiction. This concerns how the visual
sharpen our attention to the different forms of identity construction that might cause securitiza-
tion by those depicted. Security discourses are, according to Hansen (2006) and Campbell (1992),
in many ways about the constitution of subject positions where the Self needs to be secured and
the Other is threatening it. Many security studies have focused on the constitution of a radical,
threatening Other, rather than the interaction between discourses of Self and Others (Hansen,
2011). This interaction is, however, crucial when studying visual securitization, because the image
is available to both parts. Because images are often ambiguous, the visual is at stake of becoming
the subject of rival interpretations of what is said about the identities of Selves and Others. To un-
derstand this better, Hansen has created four categories of the strategic depiction of the Other. In

5
the first, the Other is depicted as a demonic, menacing threat, in the second the Other is por-
trayed as weak and insignificant, the third portrays something that is held divine or sacred by the
Other as ordinary, downplayed or ridiculed, and the fourth displays suffering which needs to be
securitized by the observer (and thus an Other in need of help).

Finally, Hansen suggest that images are constituted through particular genres which make specific
epistemic-political claims (Hansen, 2011). For example, war photography is thought to provide
knowledge of what is truly happening in the World, while editorial cartooning is thought to offer a
critical narration (Kennedy, 2008). This affects how the security issue is constituted and contested.
While photographs claim to depict what is real, it is silently agreed upon that cartoons only display
one perception of reality. Also, some genres are seen to be making explicit political statements
more than others, for example editorial cartooning or photojournalism. Further, Hansen is con-
cerned with the form of audience response that is evoked or expected. While cartoons are associ-
ated with a ‘fast-read’ which require a simple message suitable for quick consumption (and thus
the danger of misinterpretation arises), art photography by contrast opens the possibility of a
longer and more contemplative timeframe, which does not crave a quick response from the
viewer. This does not, however, mean that some genres are systematically more securitized than
others; it is rather the question of how they are securitized differently that is in question, accord-
ing to Hansen.

By using this framework, I then strive to learn more about how a satirical drawing of the Chinese
flag in a Danish newspaper suddenly came to be shared widely in media, why it caused the Chi-
nese Government to set demands of an apology to Jyllands-Posten and caused Danish actors to
reply, and why many Chinese citizens reacted strongly to the drawing by posting angrily online.
That is, how the image did securitization when considered through an analysis of the visual itself
and its surroundings.

Case overview
To provide an overview of the subject of analysis, the case concerning the drawing of the Chinese
flag in Jyllands-Posten is presented chronologically below.

6
On Monday the 27th of January, Jyllands-Posten printed a drawing picturing the Chinese flag with
the original stars replaced with Coronavirus molecules. No text accompanied the drawing (except
for its title “Coronavirus”), which was printed as the so-called “Today’s drawing”, an editorial car-
toon addressing a topic, national or international, widely covered by the media at the given time
of the print.

Jyllands-Posten, 27th of January 2020.

Shortly after the drawing went viral (in the Jyllands-Posten’s online paper), it received thousands
of comments on the newspaper’s website and on Facebook. Many of them were critical messages
from Chinese citizens who condemned the drawing, some were from people of other nationalities
(among these Danish) who supported the Chinese disregard of the drawing and some were from
mainly Danish citizens who defended Jyllands-Posten’s right to post the satirical drawing.

On the 28th of January, the Chinese embassy in Denmark released a press statement in which they
demanded an official apology from Jyllands-Posten for the drawing. The chief editor of the paper
refused this, stating: “We cannot apologize for something we do not believe is wrong. We have no
intentions of being demeaning or to mock, nor do we think that the drawing does this. As I can see,
this is a question of two different cultural understandings” (ritzau, 2019).

7
In response to the Chinese demand, the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, gave a state-
ment in which she pointed out that the Danish media has freedom of speech, and thus can draw
what they want.

Other international media, such as BBC, EuroNews, The Telegraph and the New York Post, covered
the story, making it available to a broader audience than just Danish and Chinese citizens. It was
also covered widely in Danish media. In response, some Chinese citizens posted counter-drawings
of the Danish flag on the internet containing for example swastikas and sanitary napkins as a coun-
teraction.

The cartoonist, Niels Bo Bojesen, received threats through his email and phone, and authorities
were contacted to secure his safety (Honoré, 2020). Since this, no more information about the
case has been released to the public.

3-step analysis of the visual securitization process

Step 1. Strategies of depiction and the immediate intertext
Firstly, the strategies of depiction are considered to form a basis of understanding of the drawing.
In this case, the Self is Denmark (the Danish public), while the Other is China (the Chinese public).
The drawing does not depict the Other as demonic. It does not present is as weak or insignificant
either. A virus can of course be dangerous, and one could argue that a country hit by disease is
weakened, but none of these deductions are visible in the drawing itself. The drawing does not
display suffering, though disease generally can be associated with this. It is then clear that Han-
sen’s third category is applicable in this case, because the drawing portrays something potentially
sacred, the Chinese flag, in a way which can be perceived as ridiculing. A nation’s flag is not sacred
per definition, but it is often institutionalized as a symbol of national identity (Seufert, 1997,
Nahmod, 1990). By removing the stars, which symbolize communism and China’s social classes,
the flag is deprived of its initial meaning and instead becomes a representation of merely the
Coronavirus. Thus, it can be argued that Chinese citizens through the drawing are deprived of their
national identity and heritage, and instead they are stamped as nothing but virus carriers, which
can be seen as ridiculing. It is, however, important to keep in mind that it was not necessarily the
intention of Jyllands-Posten to be demeaning, indeed they claimed that this was not the case and

8
that it was merely an illustration of the virus’ origin, but this does not prevent other actors, for ex-
ample the Chinese government and Chinese citizens, from interpreting it this way. Thus, the draw-
ing can be viewed as a ridiculing of something sacred to Chinese actors, even if Danish actors claim
that this is not the intention. The contrast between the two interpretations is analysed further in
the following sections.

Turning to the immediate intertext, the information one can gain from this is very sparse, seeing
as there is none. The drawing is accompanied by the very simple title “Coronavirus”, and it has not
been created to illustrate an article, as was the case with the Muhammad drawings (Hansen,
2011). Thus, it cannot be said for certain what Jyllands-Posten’s intention with the drawing was
based on the immediate intertext or accompanying text. The drawing stands for itself, and is as a
result open for free interpretation, which might have enhanced the possibility of cultural misun-
derstandings. Indeed, one could imagine that the drawing, had it been accompanied with an ob-
jective description of the Corona-virus and its origin, would have drawn less intention, because it
would then be clear that its intention was to communicate a series of specific events. It could still
be perceived as provocative, but its ambiguous message would not stand alone without any words
to clear the intention behind the drawing. Further, Jyllands-Posten exactly has been known to
print drawings which are provocative, and it is generally perceived as a right-wing newspaper,
though a serious and acclaimed one, which have been found to reproduce prejudiced discourses
about ethnic minorities in the Danish media (Hussain, 2000). This fact itself may not affect how the
drawings are perceived by Chinese citizens, who probably know little about the political stances of
Danish newspapers, but the Muhammed Crisis in 2005-2006 was covered widely by international
media, including Jyllands-Posten’s part in the crisis. This makes it likely that content from this ex-
act newspaper is viewed internationally as aiming to mock or demean other nationalities more
than content from other Danish newspaper, even if it is not the case. The consequences of this will
be investigated further in sections 2 and 3.

Step 2. The genre of cartooning

Jyllands-Postens “Today’s drawing” is a classic example of editorial cartooning, which is generally
expected to provide a critical narration of a current issue (Hansen, 2011). Editorial cartoons are

9
situated on the editorial pages of a newspaper, and though there is an expectation that the politi-
cal stances of the newspaper and editorial cartoonist converge to some extent, specific cartoons
are independent works in term of themes as well as political content (Hansen, 2011). The cartoon-
ist, Niels Bo Bojesen, is thus the initial creator of the drawing. There is even a standard disclaimer
in Jyllands-Posten that accompanies “Today’s drawing”, reading: “this is a satirical drawing: To-
day’s drawing expresses the cartoonist’s personal interpretation and attitude, which might differ
from Jyllands-Posten’s stances. Those are expressed only in the daily editorial comment.” Despite
the general effort to separate editorial cartooning from the official stances of the newspaper,
Jyllands-Posten did support the cartoonist’s right to draw what he wanted, claiming to defend his
freedom of speech as earlier stated. Because of this, both the cartoonist and the newspaper can
be seen to hold responsibility for the drawing by its spectators, though it can be argued that the
critical narration is foremost an expression of the cartoonist’s point of view.

As noted, editorial cartoons have a fast-read aesthetics and they often use satire, caricature or
irony. This provides spectators of editorial drawings with certain expectations. Indeed, you do not
expect an editorial cartoon to merely illustrate events without providing some sort of narrative
which places it within a discourse, but also you do not expect the drawing to demonize or ridicule
groups or individuals in a marginalizing manner (Hansen, 2011). The chief editor of Jyllands-
Posten, Jacob Nybroe, has explained the drawing as a “comment to a current event”, but stresses
that it is not meant as a criticism or an effort to blame China for the outburst of the virus. How-
ever, the genre of editorial cartooning, along with the history of the paper in relation to editorial
drawings, might prevent this message from reaching out to the public, Chinese or Danish. Indeed,
editorial cartoons do often criticize the depicted to some extent, and they rarely function as a
mere illustration of the state of things. This gives Chinese citizens reason to believe that the news-
paper did indeed intend to blame them for the virus, especially if they are not familiar with Danish
media traditions of editorial cartooning, which then understandably can lead to some outrage.
Though editorial cartooning as genre is not expected to demonize the depicted, the line between
critique and demonization is subtle when considering something as ambiguous as a drawing with-
out accompanying text. For the Danish public, the consciousness of editorial cartooning as genre
may also cause the drawing to roam larger than it would otherwise: instead of focusing on to
which extent the drawing conveyed a hateful message, the debate amongst Danish citizens

10
evolved around whether freedom of speech is unconditional or not. That is, to what extent the
border of what is acceptable to draw reaches, leading the attention away from the drawing itself
and toward a more general topic of discussion that is often brought up in national debates con-
cerning the values of the Danish liberal democracy (Mouritsen and Olsen, 2013).

Therefor, it might be true when Jacob Nybroe says that the drawing is “certainly not offensive”, at
least according to Danish standards of what is appropriate, but because it is printed as an editorial
cartoon, which is to some extent expected to be provocative, and because Jyllands-Posten is al-
ready notorious in international media due to the Muhammad drawings, the reactions caused by
the drawing may partly stem from its genre-related context and the history of newspaper it was
printed in. However, to ignore the difference in cultural contexts would be a large mistake, which
is what the next section seeks to avoid.

Step 3. The cultural context: immediacy, circulability, and ambiguity

The drawing of the Chinese flag is a two-sided story, meaning that one cannot study its effects
without considering the nexus between Danish and Chinese culture concerning media restrictions
and appropriateness. Indeed, the two countries differ largely in press freedom with Denmark rank-
ing as the country with the fifth highest degree of media freedom out of 180 countries, while
China ranks as the 177th, according to World Press Freedom Index from 2019 of Reporters Without
Borders (Reporters Without Borders, 2020). This ought to create a discrepancy between what is
acceptable to print in mainstream newspapers. Further, cultural differences cause Danish and Chi-
nese citizens to perceive concepts differently on average. An example is that Chinese individuals
tend to understand shame as a more central concept in everyday life than many Western individu-
als (Bedford and Hwang, 2003). The reason for this is, from a poststructuralist point of view, to be
found inside the discursive fields we operate within, and is thus not an expression of determinant
nature, but this does not change the fact that images can be, and are probably, understood differ-
ently within different contexts. So, whereas a satirical drawing of a flag may not seem all that of-
fensive seen with the eyes of a Danish individual, the same drawing possibly provokes a strong re-
action in a Chinese individual, because editorial cartooning is not as common as in Denmark due to
differences in media landscapes, and because the drawing might be considered a violation that

11
casts shame upon the Chinese flag and thus China. To investigate how this becomes a securitiza-
tion issue further, the three concepts of immediacy, circulability and ambiguity are applied.

Immediacy covers the feelings an image arouses in the observer. In this case, it seems plausibly
that it is not so much the image itself as what it associates to. In comparison, some of the Muham-
mad drawings displayed, what could be perceived as, stereotypical racist depictions (Hansen,
2011). This made the drawings prone to quick reactions, especially because they spoke clearly
within an existing discourse focusing on the Otherness of the Muslim minority in Denmark (Han-
sen, 2011). The drawing of the Chinese-flag, however, require knowledge of the Coronavirus, and
though it can be perceived as provocative, it does not speak within a larger discourse which de-
monizes Chinese people in general. A clear defined discourse exist in Denmark which frames Mus-
lims as a threat to the Danish society (Jacobsen et al, 2013, Hussain, 2000), and the Muhammad
drawings did not provoke a reaction until they were presented as examples of this (Hansen, 2011).
The flag-drawing does not represent a view upon Chinese people that is full-grown stereotypical,
but as mentioned earlier, it can be argued to strip China of its national identity, reducing the coun-
try to merely a virus-carrier. Though the flag drawing and Muhammad drawings probably evoke
similar feelings, feelings of anger and dehumanization, the nature of the flag is more abstract in a
way: the Muhammad drawings represent a majority looking down upon a minority in Denmark,
the drawing of the flag represent one country blaming another country for the spread of a virus
(when perceived this way). The flag drawing may not be overly provocative in its visual expression,
but it can be viewed as demeaning on a national level, which might provoke feelings not only of
shame and anger, but also an urge to stand up for one’s national identity. This could help explain
why many Chinese citizens reacted strongly online to defend their flag and thus their nation’s
pride.

Circulability is a key component when considering images that spread across borders with high
speed (Hansen, 2011, Heck and Schlag, 2013). Certainly, the fact that Jyllands-Posten function as
an online newspaper as well as a physical one makes it much easier to access for everyone, espe-
cially people from other countries than its origin-country Denmark. The drawing was extensively
shared and commented on through Facebook and Jyllands-Posten’s website. Had the internet not

12
been available, there is still a possibility that Chinese actors in Denmark, for example the embassy,
could have seen the image and reacted to it, but it seems fair to assume that the image would not
have travelled to the media of other countries or been commented on by individuals outside Den-
mark to a large extent as quickly as it did. The reactions of the Chinese citizens in China might also
have enhanced the incentive of the Chinese embassy in Denmark to act, seeing that one of the
functions of this institution is to safeguard Chinese interests. Therefor, the general observation
that images posted online spread easily and quickly is a central factor in the securitization of the
flag-drawing because it had to be seen to provoke reactions.

Finally, the ambiguity of the image plays an important role in this case. Generally speaking, edito-
rial cartoons can almost always be interpreted in different ways (Hansen, 2011). As mentioned,
the drawing was not accompanied by any explanatory text, which only make further room for in-
terpretation. Because Denmark and China are very different in aspect to media freedom, what
might seem like an everyday editorial cartoon in Denmark can be viewed as deeply offensive in
China. Indeed, Danish newspaper do print drawings that are much more offensive in terms of both
visuals and messages, as Jacob Nybroe too pointed out, so had it not been for the Chinese reac-
tion, there is small possibility that Danish citizens would have taken notice of the drawing. How-
ever, as earlier suggested, the drawing can be considered demeaning for a Chinese observer, espe-
cially one who is not accustomed to the editorial cartoon as every-day entertainment. A misinter-
pretation between cultural understanding then arises, which is supported by the various mocking
drawings of the Danish flag that were posted on the internet. The Chinese citizens affected by the
flag-drawing wanted to revenge the offense by exposing the Danish flag to the same, but because
Danish citizens are constantly exposed to, sometimes offensive, liberal media, the flag-revenge act
did not evoke strong feelings amongst Danish citizens as the original flag-drawing did in China, and
thus failed its intended mission. This strengthens the reason to believe that in general, Danish and
Chinese individuals tolerate different degrees of ridicule of sacred concepts.

The drawing can certainly be viewed in multiple ways: as a comment of blame and dehumaniza-
tion, as a humoristic interpretation based on current events and even as a descriptive illustration
based on the fast spread of the Coronavirus. No matter the initial intention, the ambiguity of the
drawing must be considered a core factor which caused securitization. The meaning different ac-
tors subscribe to the drawing certainly played a part in the welcome it received. Because cultural

13
understandings differ, the drawing, when removed from its Danish context and placed in the Chi-
nese, caused disagreements based on to which extent media should be allowed to portray their
perception of reality. An issue which may be hard to agree on for two countries that are in each
their top five of countries with most and less press freedom.

Crisis or not: a question of context?

We have learned that various factors related to the drawing led to the minor diplomatic crisis be-
tween Denmark and China which followed its release. However, the crisis was indeed minor. Turn-
ing to the Muhammad crisis, its implications were much more serious and wider. Through this
analysis and Hansen’s article from 2011, it is clear that there are both similarities and differences
between the two cases. The differences, for example in what the drawings depict, might partly ex-
plain why the Muhammad crisis grew much bigger than the flag-crisis: some of the Muhammad
drawings were arguably racist (Hansen, 2011), while the flag-drawing is less demonizing in its ex-
pression as earlier stated. But returning to Mitchell, the question of image agency may also con-
tribute with some explanation. In 2005, when the Muhammad drawings were printed, they did not
receive much attention until they were highlighted as part of an anti-muslim discourse, which was
claimed to increasingly take hold in Denmark in the aftermath of 9/11. In relation to this, the situa-
tion between the West and many Arab countries was tense: terrorism and its relation to Islam in
general was widely debated, and many scholars have found that Muslim minorities in Western
countries were generally articulated as “the enemy” after the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks (Shooman
and Spielhaus, 2009, Allen, 2010, Rytter and Pedersen, 2014). It is likely that this created an ideal
situation for the Muhammad drawings to unleash their power. Because Muslims already experi-
enced hateful discourses, both in those situated in Denmark in their everyday life and those living
in the Arabic countries in international contexts, the Muhammad drawings may have been the
drop that made the glass overflow, and thus they did more harm at that point than they would
have at another given point in time, following Mitchell’s logic. In contrast, the drawing of the Chi-
nese flag came at a time were the Chinese authorities were deeply occupied with the virus itself
and how to remain in control of the situation it brought with it. Further, it might not seem wise to
escalate a conflict based on a drawing related to the Coronavirus, when it was probably more de-
sirable for China to detach the virus from their national identity and thus their flag. Then, the flag-

14
crisis and the Muhammad crisis might differ in their conflict-level also because of the temporal
context they were printed, which stresses that this aspect is worth considering as well when deal-
ing with visuality.

What cannot be learned from this analysis and conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to investigate how the drawing of the Chinese flag printed in
Jyllands-Posten on 27th of January led to a minor diplomatic crisis. Thus, focus has been on the vis-
ual as a securitizing concept on its own. In this case, it made sense to apply Hansen’s framework of
analysis from 2011 due to it similarities to the Muhammad crisis, though this might not always be
the case (Andersen, Vuori and Mutlu, 2015). However, this analysis does not investigate the wider
political-discursive processes which are founding for the spaces Denmark and China as nations op-
erate within further. Hence, to fully understand the how visuality does security, it might be neces-
sary to combine the understanding of the visual objects with other types of analyses which bring
in the discursive constitution of identities, policies and tensions between nations. Existing dis-
courses and cultural identities have been touched upon in this paper, but to comprehend how vis-
uals work within international relations, it is necessary to view them as an aspect of security stud-
ies but not a stand-alone concept (Hansen, 2011). Thus, this analysis teaches us how visuals can
operate and lead to security issues, but it does not prove a full picture of the complex landscape of
tensions between different nations which is also highly dependent on discourses.

What can be learned from this paper is that different aspects of visuality played a part in the secu-
ritization of Jyllands-Posten’s drawing of the Chinese flag. The depiction can be argued to display
the Chinese flag in a humiliating manner which reduces Chinese individuals to virus-carriers and
nothing else, which makes the drawing perceived as offensive. Also, Jyllands-Posten’s history of
printing provocative drawings might also play a part in causing strong reactions. The genre of edi-
torial cartooning is known to provide sharp comments regarding current issues, which may have
enhanced the tendency to view the drawing as mocking rather than descriptive. Finally, the circu-
lability of images posted on the internet made the drawing travel fast across borders so many peo-
ple saw it, and the differences between Danish and Chinese culture, no matter what they result
from, most likely played a central part in the minor-crisis that unfolded. What might be considered

15
an institutionalized part of common editorial practice in Denmark can be viewed as highly offen-
sive in China due to different understandings of appropriateness and press freedom. Therefore, it
is not only the aesthetic aspect of the drawings that matters, but just as much the message the ob-
server reads into it which caused security related issues. Lastly, to address Hansen’s question of
who did the securitization, the image or a securitizing actor, it then seems clear that the image did
it itself in this case: the drawing and its ambiguity created the diplomatic issue, and was not used
to justify desired political actions by securitizing actors.

Literature
Allen, C. (2010). Fear and loathing: The political discourse in relation to Muslims and Islam in the
British contemporary setting. Politics and Religion Journal, 4(2), 221-236.

Andersen, R. S., Vuori, J. A., & Mutlu, C. E. (2014). Visuality. In Critical Security Methods (pp. 101-
133). Routledge.

Bedford, O., & Hwang, K. K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural framework
from the perspective of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(2),
127-144.

Bojesen, N. (2020). Dagens tegning. Jyllands-Posten.

Campbell D (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manches-
ter: Manchester University Press

Hansen, L. (2011). Theorizing the image for security studies: Visual securitization and the Muham-
mad cartoon crisis. European Journal of International Relations, 17(1), 51-74.

Hansen, L. (2015). How images make world politics: International icons and the case of Abu
Ghraib. Review of International Studies, 41(2), 263-288.

16
Heck, A., & Schlag, G. (2013). Securitizing images: The female body and the war in Afghanistan. Eu-
ropean Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 891-913.

Honoré, D. (2020). Jyllands-Posten-tegner modtager trusler efter Kina-satiretegning. Berlingske.

Hussain, M. (2000). Islam, media and minorities in Denmark. Current sociology, 48(4), 95-116.

Jacobsen, S. J., Jensen, T. G., Vitus, K., & Weibel, K. (2013). Analysis of Danish media setting and
framing of Muslims, Islam and racism. SFI.

Laustsen, C. B. (2008). The camera as a weapon: On Abu Ghraib and related matters. Journal for
Cultural Research, 12(2), 123-142.

Mitchell, W. J. T. (2009). The future of the image: Rancière’s road not taken. Culture, Theory & Cri-
tique, 50(2-3), 133-144.

Mouritsen, P., & Olsen, T. V. (2013). Denmark between liberalism and nationalism. Ethnic and Ra-
cial Studies, 36(4), 691-710.

Möller, F. (2007). Photographic interventions in post-9/11 security policy. Security Dialogue, 38(2),
179-196.

Nahmod, S. H. (1990). The Sacred Flag and the First Amendment. Ind. LJ, 66, 511.

Rancière, J. (2009). Do pictures really want to live?. Culture, Theory & Critique, 50(2-3), 123-132.

Reuters (2020). China demands apology for newspaper’s coronavirus cartoon. New York Post.

Rytter, M., & Pedersen, M. H. (2014). A decade of suspicion: Islam and Muslims in Denmark after
9/11. Ethnic and racial studies, 37(13), 2303-2321.

17
Ritzau (2020) Kina forlanger undskyldning fra Jyllands-Posten efter satiretegning.

Seufert, G. (1997). The Sacred Aura of the Turkish Flag. New Perspectives on Turkey, 16, 53-61.

Shooman, Y., & Spielhaus, R. (2009). The concept of the Muslim enemy in the public discourse. In
Muslims in the West after 9/11 (pp. 208-238). Routledge.

Shepherd, L. J. (2008). Visualising violence: Legitimacy and authority in the ‘war on terror’. Critical
Studies on Terrorism, 1(2), 213-226.

Vuori, J. A. (2010). A timely prophet? The doomsday clock as a visualization of securitization moves
with a global referent object. Security Dialogue, 41(3), 255-277.

18