The conflict in Syria is likely to be one of President Obama's most important foreign policy legacies, with many already believing that his administration's inaction (despite its statements of intended action) in that area was a major departure in US foreign policy towards the Middle East. Jasmine Gani writes that the early part of the twentieth century saw a similar period of selective inactivity in the Middle East for the US, when it had sympathy but gave no material support for Arab independence movements into the 1940s.
This week, a throwaway remark from the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, on placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control, has become a real policy proposal led by Russia. Jasmine Gani writes that this 'blunder' made good is symbolic of the Obama administration's lack of strategic direction on Syria. Only two weeks ago, Obama was pushing heavily for military intervention, but a vote against in the UK's House of Commons, increasing opposition in Congress, and the shadow of the Iraq war, have all undermined Washington's urgent push for action, and raised questions about US motives for any attack.
Ten years on since the Arab uprisings we are in a position to assess how the nexus between knowledge, discourse and practice had a bearing on the trajectory of the protests. They represented hope and change for millions of Arabs in the region, but to what extent was that the case for onlookers in Europe and the US, and did western discourse on events in the Middle East matter? While the toppling of longstanding dictators was met with jubilation by Arab populations, it conversely created anxiety and fear in many western governments. This was reflected in the shift from an initially celebratory discourse in western commentary to disappointment, pessimism and disavowal of the uprisings. Within a year, op-eds and academic articles were asking whether the 'Arab Spring' had turned into an 'Islamist winter', reverting to Orientalist narratives about the inevitability of conflict, bloodshed and sectarianism in the Middle East. I argue this discourse had implications for the outcome of the uprisings as 'latent Orientalism' translated into 'manifest Orientalism' and western states hesitated to support opposition groups they initially encouraged and emboldened. I begin the article with a study of western discourse in the first year of the uprisings, which I then situate within a long durée history of western policy and representation of the Middle East. In the final sections I consider the role of scholarship and think tanks as mediators of Orientalist discourse. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
In this article, I ask three key questions: First, what is the relationship between militarism and race? Second, how does colonialism shape that relationship to produce racial militarism on both sides of the imperial encounter? And, third, what is the function of racial militarism? I build on Fanon's psychoanalytic work on the production of racial hierarchies and internalization of stigma to argue that militarism became a means through which the European imperial nation-state sought to mitigate its civilizational anxiety and assert itself at the top of a constructed hierarchy. In particular, I argue that European militarism is constituted by its colonization and historical constructions of the so-called Muslim Orient, stigmatized as a rival, a threat and an inferior neighbour. However, this racial militarism and civilizational anxiety is not only a feature of the colonial metropole, but also transferred onto colonized and postcolonial states. Drawing on examples of racial militarism practised by the Syrian regime, I argue Europe's racial-militarist stigmas are also internalized and instrumentalized by postcolonial states via fleeing and transferral. Throughout the article, I demonstrate that racial militarism has three main functions in both metropole and postcolony: the performance of racial chauvinism and superiority; demarcation of boundaries of exclusion; and dehumanization of racialized dissent in order to legitimate violence.
In this article, I ask three key questions: First, what is the relationship between militarism and race? Second, how does colonialism shape that relationship to produce racial militarism on both sides of the imperial encounter? And, third, what is the function of racial militarism? I build on Fanon's psychoanalytic work on the production of racial hierarchies and internalization of stigma to argue that militarism became a means through which the European imperial nation-state sought to mitigate its civilizational anxiety and assert itself at the top of a constructed hierarchy. In particular, I argue that European militarism is constituted by its colonization and historical constructions of the so-called Muslim Orient, stigmatized as a rival, a threat and an inferior neighbour. However, this racial militarism and civilizational anxiety is not only a feature of the colonial metropole, but also transferred onto colonized and postcolonial states. Drawing on examples of racial militarism practised by the Syrian regime, I argue Europe's racial-militarist stigmas are also internalized and instrumentalized by postcolonial states via fleeing and transferral. Throughout the article, I demonstrate that racial militarism has three main functions in both metropole and postcolony: the performance of racial chauvinism and superiority; demarcation of boundaries of exclusion; and dehumanization of racialized dissent in order to legitimate violence. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
This volume covers the "middle" time period of the Syrian uprising, roughly from 2012 when Syria's peaceful protest began to mutate into a violent insurgency and civil war until roughly 2018 when the conflict took on features of a "frozen conflict." The middle period was important as one of key junctures or turning points when the struggle could have reached rather different outcomes. Non-violent protest failed to drive democratization and turned into violent insurrection but revolution from below also failed as did regime counter-insurgency, leaving protracted civil war the default outcome. Second, the consequences of civil war became evident with five themes: failing statehood coexisted with regime resilience; rebel governance emerged as a viable challenge to the regime; social forces were sharply polarized; external actors exacerbated internal divisions; a predatory war economy emerged; and intense violence led to massive displacement of the population. Taking an innovative and interdisciplinary approach that seeks to capture the full complexity of the phenomenon, this book contributes significantly to our understanding of the Syrian conflict, therefore it will be of interest to academics, students, journalists and policy-makers interested in the Syrian civil war.
Is there an academic–policy divide, and does that gap need to be bridged? For decades, International Relations (IR) scholars have reflected on their roles and responsibilities towards the 'real world', while policy-makers have often critiqued the detachment of academic research. In response, there have been increased calls for academics to descend from their 'ivory tower'. However, the articles in this 100th anniversary special issue of International Affairs interrogate this so-called theory–policy divide and problematize the exchange of knowledge between academics and practitioners, highlighting the colonial underpinnings of their historical entanglements. In this introductory article we bring together the core arguments of the special issue contributions to delineate three prominent dynamics in the academic–practitioner nexus: the role of academia as a supplier of knowledge for colonial policies; the influence of imperial practice and policy-makers in shaping IR and academic knowledge production; and the contestation from academics and/or practitioners against racial hierarchies in knowledge production and policy-making. Confronting the exclusions, amnesias and denials of colonialism in the theory and practice of International Relations is the necessary first step in any process of repair towards a more just and viable politics. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
Abstracts Declaration of positionality and the confession of privilege as a way of revealing unequal power dynamics in knowledge production has become an increasingly encouraged reflexive practice in international relations and other disciplines. However, we interrogate the potentially negative implications of this methodology, occurring through a reification of material, assumed, and imagined hierarchies between people, which then is advertised and (re)produced by its utterance. We further query the modernist origins of reflexive methodology, which has inspired the practice of declaring positionality, and argue that its underpinning coloniality has bearings for its use today. We then explore how this coloniality manifests: Thus, first, we consider the extent to which publicly acknowledging privilege paradoxically acts as a means of centering whiteness through the narcissistic gaze and an assertion of legitimacy. Second, we argue positionality statements offer a redemption of guilt for the hegemonic researcher. And lastly, rather than ameliorating unequal power dynamics in the production of knowledge, we contend positionality statements may constitute hidden power moves in which one is able to signal and reinstate one's authority vis-à-vis people, but especially women, of color. We end with a call for a reparative scholarship that acknowledges these limitations in positionality statements.
Faye Donnelly is a Lecturer in the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews. She is the author of Securitization and the Iraq War: The Rules of Engagement in World Politics (Routledge, 2013). Her most recent article, 'The Queen's Speech: Desecuritizing the Past, Present and Future of Anglo-Irish Relations' has been published in the European Journal of International Relations. Jasmine K. Gani is a Lecturer in the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews. She is the author of The Role of Ideology in Syrian-US Relations: Conflict and Cooperation (Palgrave 2014). Her latest article, 'The Erasure of Race: Cosmopolitanism and the Illusion of Kantian hospitality ' is forthcoming in Millennium Journal of International Studies. She tweets @JKGani. ; Publisher PDF
Examining the international dimensions of the Syrian conflict, this book studies external factors relating to the uprising. It explores the involvement of outside powers and the events' impact both on regional and international level. Syria was widely perceived to be essential to the regional power balance, hence it was a valued prize to be fought over. The book examines the impact of global and regional powers in propelling the conflict in Syria; looks at the motives and strategies of the key regional and international actors (Hizbollah, Palestinians; Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US, Russia, EU) and analyses the impact of the Syrian conflict on key relations between regional states (Turkey-Syria, Turkey-Iran, Iraq-Syria). Finally, several chapters treat the impact on Syria of international sanctions and the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine (R2P). This book is a follow on to volume one, The Syrian Uprising: domestic origins and early trajectory, eds, Raymond Hinnebusch and Omar Imady (2018). Subsequent volumes will examine the later evolution of the conflict.
