Thread by @uOttawaCIPS

Next we’re going to share Jack Holland’s (@DrJackHolland) thread here. #5EyesCIPS

This book explores the foreign policy of the world’s foremost military coalition during the Syrian Civil War. It analyses the foreign policy debates that took place across the old Anglosphere coalition (US,UK,Aus -2011-2019). #5EyesCIPS

The book defines an Old Anglosphere Coalition (US/UK/Australia).

Why?

Five Eyes is at the heart of the Anglosphere but NZ and Canada, with a 2-step colonial history (facing the UK and a powerful neighbour) are less interventionist
#5EyesCIPS

Special relationship? Crucial! But, the Australians are just as keen to fight alongside the US.

This is far more than a security ‘insurance policy’ for Aus or UK. It is about culture, history, race, language, democracy, values ➡️ identity and emotion. #5EyesCIPS

The book explores the linguistic dynamics of war and peace, theorising that a discursive war of position (foreign policy debates) took place across a single transnational political space (the Anglosphere). This contest helped to determine Syria’s fate #5EyesCIPS

The analysis is structured chronologically in 4 (overlapping, constructed, & heuristic) phases, as the war evolved from a battle for democracy and human rights (2011-), through chemical weapons concerns (2012-), and counter-terrorism (2014-), to proxy war (2015-). #5EyesCIPS

This table summarises the evolution of Anglosphere foreign policy discourses across the coalition, from 2011-2019. Debate was structured by more liberal & more conservative (realist) voices, divided between democracy promotion & remembering lessons of Iraq. #5EyesCIPS

In phase 1 – democracy promotion (2011-):

The discursive structure of the conflict was set in this period, as: Assad must go but this is Syria’s fight, not the Anglosphere’s. #5EyesCIPS

Phase 2 – chemical weapons (2012-):

Obama’s ‘red line’, then a sarin gas attack in Ghouta.

The chemical weapons taboo drove calls for intervention, which were only quelled accidentally by Kerry’s pontificating and Lavrov’s strategy. #5EyesCIPS

In phase 3 – Islamic State (2014-): A (new) War on Terror, against a ‘death cult’. HI & GWOT combined to shift the Anglosphere to an interventionist position, albeit against ISIL, not Assad, & in protection of Yazidis, rather than a broader Syrian/Iraqi population. #5EyesCIPS

Phase 4: Proxy War (2015-). Putin/Russia intervene, changing nature of conflict. Balance of debate shifted away from intervention, toward need for political transition (Assad must go but not straight away). Some even touted working with Russia against mutual (ISIL) foe #5EyesCIPS

Enter Donald Trump. A clear division between ISIL (destroy) and Assad (relative disinterest), in combination with Russian sympathies. Until Assad twice uses chemical weapons and Trump authorises airstrikes. #5EyesCIPS

Policy lessons for Anglo FP: 1)Ends-means gap (Assad must go, but no action)➡️need joined-up FP
2)Assad must go (locked out of talks, but likely to win)
1+2 helps conditions for perpetual conflict
3)Focus on ISIL & CW in isolation gives impression conflict is solved #5EyesCIPS

Academic insights:
1)Anglosphere increasingly a single transnational political space for FP debates
2)Policies of war and peace relied upon victory/defeat in discursive battle
3)Reality of SCW evolved for Anglosphere in line with 4 key framings #5EyesCIPS