Policy on proxy wars has essentially remained unchanged
since the end of the Cold War. States utilize proxies as informal tools to influence situations in a manner that
would benefit their state. Cold War proxies, were heavily grounded on
ideological influence. The Soviets and
the US used proxies to dismiss the others political ideologies in support of
their own. Since the end of the Cold War there have been numerous proxies in
the Middle East and across Africa. The commonalties between them seem to be
rooted in geopolitical and geographic quandaries with minor a sectarian
component in some cases. In this section I explore proxies in conflicted areas
such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq ,Somalia
and Lebanon. In
these cases civil disputes create regional power vacuums that entice regional
actors and sometimes outside nations to try to attain greater influence.
Syrian
Civil War 2011-Present
The
civil uprising in Syria followed in the footsteps of other uprisings in the
Arab world. However unlike in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, the Syrian uprising has
resulted in a seemingly endless civil war. Like
the causes of the other uprisings, Syrians are malcontent with their
government. This discontentment has a
lot to do with corruption and abuse of power on the part of the Basher
al-Assad’s regime. Al-Assad’s desire to maintain power has resulted in mass
casualties, and has created an environment where a multitude of states are vying
for geostrategic advantage.
It
is important to note that within the
Middle East there are sectarian tensions between the two
main groups, Shiites, and Sunnis. Syria
is governed by the Alawite ( a minority
Shiite sect) minority, in a majority Sunni nation. Sectarian differences has
not preoccupied the conflict between Syrians themselves but it has created a clear division among
supporters of the regime (Iran) and
enemies (The Gulf States).
Iran:
From
the Iranian perspective , the Syrian civil war is not a domestic issue but rather it is a
“resistance axis against the
enemies of Iran”. Syria plays a key role for serves as a bridge between the Iran’s and
Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian government allows easy distribution of weapons into
Lebanon . Not to mention, that if the
Assad Regime falls Iran loses their most
malleable ally in the region, this in turn would limit Iran’s influence in the
ever on going Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Syria plays a pivotal role in
Iran’s “power projection” .
Gulf States:
Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf States are known for having an incredible amount of
oil wealth. They are utilizing their resources to funnel money and arms to Free
Syrian Army and other opposition groups. The Saudis
have promoted resolutions at the UN demanding an end to the violence and
strong sanctions against Syria. They have been big proponents of a unified coalition solution, similar to the one
used in Libya. The ultra conservative Sunni ruled Saudi
Arabia is in a sense supporting the Free Syrian Army to promote a policy of
containment. Within the region there are
two main sects, the Sunnis and the Shiites. Iran represents the most powerful Shiite
force in the region and the Gulf, as aforementioned, is Sunni lead. The Gulf states do not support the agenda set
forth by the Iranian government and have taken it upon themselves to limit the sway that the Iranians are gaining in the
region. The conflict in Syria is a good way for the
Gulf to cut off some of the influence of the Shiite lead Iranian government in
the region. The Gulf States will use whatever
tools are available to achieve this goal.
United States:
The
United States has been a quiet actor in the Syrian drama. The Obama
administration is wary of getting
involved in another conflict in the region but has authorized some aid in
support of the opposition. The US is
assumed to be unofficially involved in providing arms and tactical help to the
rebels. Unlike Saudi Arabia, the US does not recognize all Syrian opposition
groups as legitimate. The CIA is said to be vetting groups to determine which
ones the US would be willing to arm. The
United States has supported UN
resolutions that impose sanctions on
Syria. The US has called on other nations to join in demanding the resignation
of Bashar al-Assad. The US is not keen on operating an intensive
intervention and is instead seeking to adopt all other possibilities before
utilizing its military power. However, if
the time comes the US is willing to work in a coalition type force, similar to
the one that was used in Libya. The
toppling of Assad’s regime could severely sever Iran’s strength in the
region which would be beneficial to the
US and its allies. NATO Patriot
Missile systems, under the direction of the US,
were recently installed in Turkey in response to Assad’s authorization
of scud missiles against civilians in Aleppo. The Patriot Missiles serve as an
intercepting mechanism should Assad chose to attack Syria’s borders.
Russia:
The
Russians also have a hand in the Syrian
conflict . The Russians have been supporters of the Assad’s regime since
the beginning. They maintain that the international community needs to respect
the sovereignty of Syria and getting involved in the states matter is
unnecessary. In accordance with this stance, the Russians have vetoed
resolutions at the UN n regards to
Syria, on the grounds of protecting Syria’s right to sovereignty. The Russians have expressed concern over US
involvement as well as displeasure of
new sanctions placed against Syria. Russia
continues to serve as a provider of arms
to the Syrian military. And continues to supply them throughout the
civil conflict, and has even provided humanitarian aid to the Assad regime. In
recent weeks it has been assumed that the Russians have provided resources and
troops to Assad’s cause, though this has been vehemently denied by Russia. In response to NATOs instillations of Patriot
missiles, the Russians have there own systems pointed at Turkey should there be
an attempt by NATO to send in missiles.
Yemen
2004-Present
Yemen
is a state that is seldom mentioned in US media, but since 2004 there has been is a
minor proxy war involving Iran, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the US. The
situation in Yemen is grounded in a civil dispute between the Sunni led
government and the Houthis (Shiite rebels). Yemen, like most states in the Gulf,
has a Sunni led government, which creates friction between the minority sects.
Iran:
As
is the case with most Middle East proxies involving Iran, Iran is supporting
the Shiite minority group. Iran has denied providing weapons and funding to the
militants, but the interception of a boat containing supplies was deemed to
have come from Iran. As it often the
case, Iran is trying to increase its sphere of influence around the
region. By supporting the Houthis they
are threatening the stability of not only Yemen but Saudi Arabia as well.
Saudi Arabia:
Saudi
Arabia is fearful of both Iran spreading its influence around the region and
that regime change could allow increased Iranian influence in Yemen’s
government . Like Saudi Arabia, the current regime in Yemen is Sunni lead which
allows for greater cooperation in the Gulf. Should Iran successfully help the
Houthis gain influence or power this could jeopardize the system and create
tensions in the region by completely disrupting the regional balance. In the
eyes of Saudi Arabia, the situation in Yemen is a matter of national security.
If Yemen is lead by a non-Sunni government there could be increased
hostilities. Thus the Saudi’s have deemed there is no other action to be taken except
militarily intervention against Yemeni opposition.
Saudi military has orchestrated operations against the Houthis rebels both on
the border and within Yemen itself.
Saudi Security is of utmost priority but in order to maintain it they
require regional normalcy.
United States:
In
the case of Yemen the United States has different objectives than Saudi Arabia .
But a common goal is the conservation
of the Yemeni government. Should the Houthis
gain control of the Yemeni Government it would lead to potential advantage for Iran. The US has chosen
not to enlist help of other states rather it is leaving the situation up to the
Yemeni government. The US has
however provided intelligence to the Yemeni government in regards to the
Houthi rebel operations. For several
years there had not been proof of how or by whom the Houthis were supplying
themselves, but US intelligence led to the interception of a boat that was
smuggling money, explosives ,and weapons.
With the approval of Yemen’s
government the US has been discreetly using drones to attack what it claims are
terrorist cells. Yemen is a breeding ground for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. As part of
the US war on terror, it is imperative that terrorist factions are dealt with.
Iraq
2003-Present
Iran:
Iran
and Iraq have a long history of tension. In the 1980’s they fought in the Iran-Iraq war which lasted eight years. Fast forward
to 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq and toppled the Saddam Hussein regime,
for the first time Iran had an opportunity
to infiltrate Iraq and try to influence
the country. As is the case with the Middle East,
sectarian tensions are present in Iraq. Iraq has majority Shia population and minority
Sunni population, however under Hussein’s regime the country was Sunni lead. After the American aided in creation of the New Iraqi Government, it
became Shia lead. Iran chose to fund
both Shia and Sunni opposition groups. Iran provided funding, arms, and even training for a variety of opposition forces. A typical assumption of the Iranian government to want a Shia lead government,
as it could serve as a safety net for their regime. However, perhaps due
to strong US involvement they might deem a
Shia led government to be unbeneficial.
In this context, Iranian support for Shia opposition is clear. But it
seems illogical for the Iranians to support Sunni groups if the end goal is to
have a Shia lead government that can operate in unison with the Iranian regime.
This suggests that the Iranian goal in Iraq
is to further destabilize Iraq and the region, rather than puppeteering
an Iraqi regime.
Somalia 2006
The
conflict in the Horn of Africa created a power vacuum in which the rivalries between Eritreans and
Ethiopians erupted. In the absence of a formal federal government Somalis reverted
to local forms of governing (often religious rebel groups). In 2004 a Transitional Federal Government was
established, but not all were in agreement. Different local actors sought control, the struggle
for power within Somalia, created the perfect environment for outside influence.
Eritrea:
The
Eritrean government provided military aid to the Islamic opposition groups.
Eritrea does not have much of an ideological reason for involving itself in
Somalia rather, its assistance serves as a way to engage in a war against
Ethiopia with out actually fighting one another. Territorial disputes with Ethiopia resulted
in a treaty that clearly indicated boundaries. However, Ethiopia refuses to
respect the boundaries as stipulated in the agreement, which has augmented
tensions. The Eritrean government had threatened war against Ethiopia but
supporting the opposition provides Eritrea an easy out.
Ethiopia:
The
Eritrean rivalry has been longstanding. While Eritrea funds the Islamic
militants, Ethiopia recognizes and provides support for Somalia’s interim government. Ethiopia has a Christian
lead government, but is a Muslim majority population. The Ethiopian government
is concerned, if the Islamist groups succeed in toppling the Somali government
it might inspire Muslims in Ethiopia to revolt against the government. Thus it
is in Ethiopians governments best interest to
support the Transitional government, as it t could bring stability to Somalia
and then hopefully stability to the region.
Lebanon
War 2006
For decades Lebanon
has unfortunately operated as a staging ground for proxy wars between regional
actors like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria as each nation vies for greater
authority in the region. This has lead
to the intensification of historic sectarian tensions, which then impedes the
ability of state institutions to properly govern.
The Lebanon
war began with an attack by Hezbollah against Israel. Hezbollah
has long been regarded as a terrorist organization with ties to the Iranian
government, thus the attack was viewed as a signal from the Iranian
regime. The Iranians supported Hezbollah
and the United States supported Israel. Since 2005 Hezbollah has been an official actor in Lebanese
politics, and their ideologies are in direct opposition with the security of
Israel.
United States:
In 2006 the US was in the middle of two conflicts in the Middle
East. It was not in a position to offer military assistance, but it fully supported
Israel’s operation justifying it as a protective measure. While Hezbollah does not
pose a direct threat to the United States, the US views Hezbollah as an arm of the
Iranian Republic. The Iranian regimes
utilization of proxies throughout the region serves as a destabilizing tool
against US interests. The instigation by Hezbollah presented an opportunity to significantly weaken
Iranian influence in the region. The defeat of Hezbollah would decrease
legitimacy and credibility of both Hezbollah but more importantly Iran. It would also reemphasize the position of the
US and its Allies on the War on Terror.
However
there were risks associated with US support of Israel during its bombing campaign.
Just a year prior, the US had increased its clout with the Lebanese people
after playing a crucial role in convincing Syria to retreat during the Cedar
revolution. The bombings committed by
Israel took the lives of many innocent Lebanese civilians and conflict risked
spillover into Iraq. Overall the US stood to gain a solution for the Hezbollah
problem and delegitimize Iran’s growing influence.
Iran:
Hezbollah’s attack on Israel served as a way for Iran extend
hegemonic power, create chaos, and prove
to the world that Iran has the strength to disrupt stability. It also served as
a way for Iran to minutely signal that it would continue to seek nuclear
proliferation. Since
Hezbollah’s formation in 1980’s, Iran has served as its major backer. Iran continues to provide it weapons,
training, and funding.
How do you think Quasi-Sates and Transnational Actors will effect proxy wars?
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating question and one that I really hadn’t put much thought in to. But first off I would say under normal circumstances quasi-states represent a risk to the home states stability and security as is. The nature of their situation dictates that since they have no international recognition they cannot remain a quasi-state forever. At some point they will either reintegrate with the home state or official separate.
DeleteProxies can serve as a way for quasi states to establish their official state and have a real opportunity to successful achieve nation hood. I think that quasi-states involvement will increase the tensions during proxies as they are fighting for their right to exist. Quasi states are often supported by a so-called “protector state” (ie. Turkey and Northern Cyprus or US and Kosovo), their relationship can effect they can further escalate the conflict especially if their protector is a state with a lot of means and resources.
Transnational actors in the sense of terrorist organizations can play a role in complicating proxy wars. Since they are non-state actors that operate on the basis of ideology, they have no fear of repercussions and have no real risks associated with partaking in a proxy war. By dipping their toe in a proxy conflict the can further harm their enemies and give their opponents a harder time.
You explain many occurrences of proxy wars in the post Cold War period, but I wonder about policy resulting from them. Have there been any official efforts to dictate how much a country can get involved in a conflict to which it isn't a central party, or is this an entirely unchecked process?
ReplyDelete
DeleteThis is an interesting question and one that is not simple to answer. Proxy wars are often used as geostrategic tools to expand a states influence. There are a myriad of examples of states involved in what are arguably proxy wars. And as often as these situations occur they lack structured policy there is no official system to keep states in check. States involve themselves in proxies in 4 key ways.
1) Verbal support: where a state provides verbal support for one side of a conflict, or requests support of other states
2) Funding: provides finances
3) Armament: provides weapons
4) Military Assistance/Military training: provides military training or state sends in troops
From what I have found on Proxies, there is no sort of monitoring system in place to limit states contribution in these sorts of conflicts. This is because state involvement in proxies remains covert and must be deduced. Will this change in the future? I think it is doubtful, the nature of Proxies is secretive so having a specific guidelines for how states behave when participating in a proxy wars seem improbable since no one will overtly admit to their participation.
However, I would argue that once a state crosses the line and sends in there own troops to achieve there objectives. They are no longer reliant on a third party to do their bidding, therefore the term proxy no longer applies and has instead has become an intervention. Since there is no official International set of regulations to limit a states involvement in a non central conflict, other states my step in and serve as a sort of balancing mechanism. The US Russo relationship in Syria is a prime example, The Russians are beginning to involve themselves so as to reduce the influence of the United States and evenly distribute the pressure.
Would you say it is an intervention, not a proxy war, when a state sends any amount of troops or is there a minimum? In some of the proxy wars we looked at in the last class, countries sent troops as well as aid, but we considered it a proxy war. For example, during the Afghan Civil War (1996-2001) Pakistan sent a large number of troops to back the Taliban and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) sent a few hundred troops. Would the IMU be a principal because they sent a small amount of troops? Was this an intervention by Pakistan?
Deletehttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm#15 (this details Pakistan's involvement in this conflict)
I'm not sure that sending any amount of troops would be quantified as an intervention but when a country sends troops into another country it certainly is part of a broader over mission, be it a small peacekeeping mission or what have you. The main tenant of a proxy war is the covert nature of the engagement, when a state openly sends in troops to accomplish a mission it can no longer be covert and therefore is proxyesque rather than a full on proxy. I hope this helps you.
DeleteIn many of these conflicts you mention the US as a quiet actor but I was wondering what it would take for the US to become fully involved in a proxy war? On a related note, I wanted to know how you see the US as a distanced actor in the Yemeni conflict considering they have actively used drones to target terror cells in the country. It doesn't seem to me like they are leaving the situation to the Yemeni government in which case would we call Yemen a full-fledged US proxy?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe nature of actors engaging in proxy wars is in itself a quiet action. Proxy participation is inherently covert since nations polices toward proxies remain clandestine. In my opinion if a state becomes a fully involved actor, their participation can no longer be considered in a proxy context. At that point it would have become an intervention. I think for the US to become a more involved actor in a proxy war it would have to utilize a few of the standard measures of involvement.( see my answer to Jenny Sue’s post). It is for this reason that I do not see US involvement in Yemen as a full fledged proxy. The US has had limited involvement in the conflict. I fully understand that the use of drones is intense, but more involvement is necessary in order to consider it as more than just a quiet actor.
Also in the case of Yemen, US drone action within the state was sanctioned by the Yemeni government itself. In that sense, while it is true that it is the US that is attacking terrorist cells it is with the full recognition and acknowledgment of the Yemeni government.
great post really appreciable work.
ReplyDeleteNew Year 2017 images
happy valentines day quotes
propose day messages
happy kiss day
teddy day
Happy easter 2017
Great information I found on this site, will visit again. Thanks
ReplyDeleteMemorial Day Greetings
Memorial Day Wallpapers
Memorial Day Quotes for Loved Ones
Memorial Day Weekend 2017
Memorial Day 2017 Pictures
Quotes about Memorial Day
Fathers Day Messages From Daughter
ReplyDelete4th of July Cards
4th of July Quotes To Everyone
Fathers Day Quotes From Daughter
4th Of July Quotes And Sayings
ReplyDelete4th Of July Images Free
Funny Fourth Of July Quotes
ReplyDeleteShab E Qadr Ki Namaz
Shab E Qadr Greetings
ReplyDeleteDesigner Designer Sarees is perhaps the desire of every single girl in this world to look amazing on her wedding day.
It is certainly important that the bride must be the star of the show.The most beautiful woman at the wedding venue.
In India,Designer Sarees are the most obvious choice for the brides.There are many Designer Sarees in our site...
For more...
Plz visit:- Designer Sarees