Syria
A Staff-Student Colloquium
A Staff-Student Colloquium
Final Report
Introduction
The staff-student colloquium on Syria took place a little
over a week ago now and first of all we would like to thank all those who
attended and took part on 4th October, and who helped to make it a
fascinating and enjoyable event. Particular thanks go to our six speakers,
whose heterogeneous and provocative presentations we have summarised in the
report below.
The colloquium was opened by Dr. Alan Renwick (pictured below), the Director
of Postgraduate Research Studies in Politics.
Welcoming more than forty audience members to a packed room
in the University’s Palmer Building, Dr. Renwick noted that discussing the
situation in Syria is of paramount importance for a Department of Politics and
International Relations, since aspects of the conflict touch upon almost all of
our research interests in one way or another. In relation to his own interests
in British parliamentary politics and reform, Dr. Renwick pointed out that the
Commons vote on intervention in Syria was an example of parliament ‘asserting
itself in foreign policy’ in a way not seen since the Second World War. These
opening remarks helped to set the tone for what was to become a lively and
informative debate.
Panel One
The first panel of the colloquium opened with Dr. Andreas
Behnke speaking on ‘the political construction of the chemical weapons taboo’.
Dr. Behnke began with the observation that the general
prohibition on chemical weapons was established by the late nineteenth century,
even before these weapons were created. Concerns over the possible use of such
weapons drew upon much older conceptions of poisoning as a dishonourable and
unfair way of killing. In particular, concerns coalesced around the potential
for the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
At the core of these ideas and norms about chemical weapons,
Dr. Behnke argued, lies the politics of ‘civilisational standards’. On the one
hand, this has meant pronouncing upon the users of such weapons in large-scale
conventional wars (e.g. Germany in the First World War) as ‘uncivilised’, while
on the other hand it has enabled the self-proclaimed ‘civilised’ world to
freely use such weapons against ‘barbaric’ peoples elsewhere.
Civilisational standards come into play in the international
response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria inasmuch as it is emphasised
that while it is acceptable for ‘civilised’ Western states to possess such
weapons, and indeed ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD), they must not fall
into the ‘wrong hands’ (i.e. the hands of ‘rogue states’ and ‘terrorists’).
However, chemical weapons attacks account for less than 1% of the casualties in
the Syrian civil war to date, and the exclusive focus on their use has
distracted media attention from the fact that the Assad regime has actually
been taking an even harder line on the rebel forces in recent months.
Our second speaker, Dr. Christina Hellmich, went on to look
at how the Syrian conflict affects, and is affected by, regional dynamics.
Dr. Hellmich emphasised especially that, contrary to certain
media depictions in the West, this is not a ‘two-sided’ war in which a group of
rebels seek to overthrow a government. There are, rather, a whole set of
complex conflicts, including proxy wars between neighbouring Middle Eastern
states, being played out in Syria today.
In a wide-ranging talk, Dr. Hellmich discussed the
motivations of a range of regional powers, from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran to
Russia, Turkey and Israel, in their involvement with the conflict in Syria. These
motivations are rooted in sectarian, religious and political contests and
conflicts, as well as economic goals. These divisions and disputes inform the
support by regional neighbours for particular rebel groups as well as for the
Assad regime, and consequently any post-war outcome is likely to entail a
fragmented Syria.
The third and final speaker on our first panel, Dr. Burak
Kadercan, opened his talk with an explanation of his title, ‘The Dukes of
Hazard’.
Riffing on the title of the early-1980s American TV show
(and 2005 film of the same name), ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’, which revolved around
the adventures of the stock-car racing, risk-taking Duke brothers in the
fictional county of Hazzard, Georgia, Dr. Kadercan took us through some of the
dangers and problems involved in foreign interference in the Syrian civil war.
Specifically, Dr. Kadercan proposed using the economic
theory of ‘moral hazard’ to think about such interference. Foreign powers
engaged in a form of ‘insurance politics’ through their backing of various
parties in the conflict may actually produce unintended incentives that will
make the war longer and nastier.
Taking the role of Turkey as a case in point, Dr. Kadercan
argued that Turkish support for some insurgent groups and the existence of
‘part-time’ fighters who are allowed to cross the border into Syria to fight
during the day, while safely returning to their beds in Turkey at night, are
precisely indicators of how little incentive there currently is to bring the
conflict to a close. In seeking to insure themselves against possible futures in
Syria, neighbouring powers like Turkey actually exacerbate and prolong the
violent conflict there.
The first panel was followed by a flurry of questions and
comments from the audience, with some consensus emerging around several key
points, perhaps most importantly, that whatever happens in Syria now will not
stay in Syria. The nature of the region is such that the outcome of this
conflict will be far-reaching.
Panel Two
Corinne Heaven opened our second panel of the afternoon with
a paper on the role of the United Nations with regard to establishing the
‘truth’ around chemical weapons use in Syria.
Following up on her recent blog post on the topic, Corinne
focused on how the power of truth-telling with regard to armed conflict is
increasingly vested in ‘scientific’ branches of the United Nations bureaucracy.
The ostensible importance of ascertaining ‘scientifically’
who used chemical weapons against whom, of establishing the ‘scientific truth’,
has led to certain bodies obtaining new and important powers. Specifically, the
United Nations – not in the wider sense of the group of states bound together
by treaty, but in the narrower sense of the UN as a relatively independent
bureaucratic institution – has attained the status of arbiter in the
determination of ‘truth’ about war. Thus, while much reporting on Syria has
focused on the plural sources of knowledge of the conflict (YouTube, Twitter
etc.), there is in fact a concerted effort to privilege a particular category
of knowledge – the scientific – in political decision-making.
The second speaker on Panel Two, Professor Dominik Zaum,
analysed the role and status of the UN Security Council (SC) in relation to the
Syrian conflict.
Professor Zaum initially noted the widely held view that the
SC is ‘paralysed’ by disagreements between the permanent five members (P5).
With regard to Syria, he pointed out, a third veto from Russia and China in
July 2012 led the US and UK to accuse the former of preventing the SC from
doing its job, while the General Assembly also expressed dismay at the SC’s
stalemate on Syria. By early September, a US-led intervention without
SC-backing seemed all but inevitable.
However, the sudden passing of a resolution on Syria in late
September, together with a joint statement from the SC on the matter, seems to
imply that the ‘great powers’ feel the need to find legitimacy through the SC
rather than acting independently.
More interesting than the outcome, Professor Zaum observed,
is the decision-making process in this case, and the surprising twists and
turns the processes of legitimacy can take. For example, whereas the ‘problem
states’ were initially seen to be China and Russia, using their veto irresponsibly,
in the course of the process, the ‘problem states’ became France and the UK,
who were pushing for a military solution when the US and China were able to
negotiate a diplomatic one. Indeed, much of the difficulty faced by national
governments in obtaining domestic support for intervention (as in the House of
Commons vote) lies in the lack of perceived legitimacy in military action not
sanctioned by the SC.
Our final speaker of the day was Dr. Patrick Porter, whose
lively and cautionary commentary focused on the dangers associated with a
casual attitude towards military intervention in the West today.
Dr. Porter began by noting that the international response
to the civil war and chemical weapons controversy in Syria has largely been
about what ‘the West’ thinks it is, and what it thinks it is in charge of
doing. Specifically, the liberal notion that war is an instrument of justice
was central to the debates around intervention.
This assumption has been a key flaw in much of the Western
discourse on Syria. It has included an assumption that when Western states
intervene, they are somehow not a source of chaos, and act in a neutral
fashion. To intervene in the ways proposed by the US in August and early
September would have meant taking a side in a civil war. Furthermore, Dr.
Porter argued, Obama’s statements on the conflict and proposed intervention
were permeated not only by the ‘just war’ doctrine, but by a recession-era
‘cheapness’ – the notion that we must involve ourselves in a conflict in a way that
is at once morally good and financially restrictive. This seems to be a
disastrous approach, and one that Dr. Porter argued ardently against.
The colloquium drew to a close with a drinks reception,
where staff and students continued to discuss and debate the issues raised during
the afternoon.
Many thanks, once again, to all those who helped to make
this event happen – to our six wonderful speakers, to Dr. Renwick for his
opening remarks, to Professor Beatrice Heuser for allowing us to integrate this
event into the postgraduate induction programme and for use of the room, and to
Professor Alan Cromartie, the Head of Department for Politics and International
Relations, whose generous support allowed this event to take place. We are also
grateful to Mary Boitz, Melva Jeffries, Caroline Walter and Jen Scheppers for
their organisational support and advice.
We hope that you all found the colloquium as enjoyable and
interesting as we did. This colloquium was organised by postgraduate research
students in the Department of Politics and International Relations, pictured
below (from L-R: Malte Riemann, Norma Rossi, Nadya Ali, Ben Whitham, Corinne
Heaven).
