Dr. Jean Molloy holds a PhD from Maynooth University, Ireland. Her areas of research are international criminal law, public international law and terrorism.
Proxy wars have been a living reality of the international geopolitical sphere for decades and speak to the uncomfortable association between imperialism, law, politics and economics as powerful States seek to impose their own agendas on the global landscape. Proxy wars enable the formal power structures of State, such as a functioning government, to be penetrated by a range of different actors with differing motivations, producing multiple nucleuses of power within the contested State (Mabon and Royle, 2017). The recent conflicts involving Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the civil war in Syria and the conflicts in Israel/Palestine and Ukraine reveal the geopolitical machinations by which global powers seek to realise their interests and impose their authority on the global stage, whilst competing for global influence and dominance. In essence, proxy wars serve as testing ground for external actors to expand their global authority and strength.
Syria: From Internal Conflict to Proxy War: Islamic State
The rise of the Islamic State Caliphate in 2014 and its subsequent demise in 2018 embroiled a number of international actors in a proxy war in Syria, as competing States vied to gain supremacy over their rivals, by carving out domains of geo-political influence. As background to Islamic State, at the height of its success, the group drew tens of thousands of foreign fighters to its cause. A July 2018 study by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization in King’s College London concluded that 42210 people (or 32809 men, 4761 women, and 4640 children) from 80 countries were affiliated with Islamic State specifically. According to the study, 19572 came from the Middle East and North Africa, 7252 from Eastern Europe, 5965 from Central Asia, 5904 from Western Europe, 1010 from Eastern Asia, 1063 from South-East Asia, 753 from the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, 447 from Southern Asia, and 244 from Sub-Saharan Africa (Cook & Vale, 2018). Syria, at that time, was in the grip of a civil war, the consequences of which were endemic violence, sectarianism, chaos, and State collapse. Capitalising on these fraught conditions, Islamic State stepped into the frame, growing into a formidable regional power (Mabon & Royle, 2017) and seizing the opportunity to fulfil their aim of establishing an Islamic State Caliphate across Syria and Iraq. The marrying of an army of foreign fighters with the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts calls to mind Sterman and Rondeaux’s statement (2019): “The rising power of non-state actors and globalization has helped connect conflicts that previously were largely isolated from each other”. The fall of the Caliphate in 2018, coupled with the tensions of the civil war, by then in its seventh year, revealed the agendas and rivalries of the competing powers, discussed below.
Syria: From Internal Conflict to Proxy War
The uprisings in Syria began as part of the Arab Spring, a series of pro-democracy protests across the Arab World (Dabashi, 2012). The metastasising of the uprisings from an internal conflict to an international one unfolded at a crossroads of global, power-political interests, with two diametrically opposing world views: “Assad must go” and “Assad must stay” (Mabon & Royle, 2017). The sovereignty of Syria was violated by external actors who championed their own political agendas instead of protecting the sovereignty and rights of the Syrian people. In essence, the war had become a proxy war.
The opposing players were Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, all who supported the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in opposition to the US, UK, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia who were determined to remove Assad from power. In particular, the US and Russia sought to assert their influence in the Middle East. This proxy war reveals the complex geopolitical rivalries that continue to beset geopolitical relations and test the strength of influence of global actors. By way of examples, when the US and its allies tried to push through measures against the Assad regime, or pass UN Resolutions seeking to establish no-fly zones or safe areas for refugees, Russia and China consistently vetoed these (Kounalakis, 2016). Adding to the geopolitical tensions, one of the aims of the US was to reclaim Sunni Arab areas of Syria from Islamic State control (Hinnebusch, 2020). To this end, it engaged and supported Kurdish-led forces such as The People’s Protection Units (YPG), which was considered by Turkey to be a PKK-linked terrorist organization (O’Connor, April 10 2018). Turkey claimed that the US support ignited Kurdish ambitions to establish a Kurdish homestate and they were infuriated by this (Hinnebusch, 2020). Following Turkey’s attacks of Kurdish Syrian territories in 2018, the US conducted joint military patrols with Kurdish forces on the Turkish border. These patrols were condemned by President Erdogan, clearly signalling the opposing agendas and geopolitical goals of the US and in Turkey in Syria.
The consequences of the Syrian war have been devastating. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) estimates that 306,887 people had lost their lives in the conflict by 2022 (OHCHR, 2023), while approximately 14 million Syrians were forcibly displaced both within and outside of Syria according to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR, 2023). The country’s infrastructure lies in ruins, while an entire generation of children has grown up with deprivation, a lack of formal schooling, trauma and a positive future denied to them.
The Long Reach of Iran and Its Proxies
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has also been aggravated by external actors who have sought to advance their own agendas and strategic interests whilst undermining the dominance and influence of their opponents. One of the most influential players is Iran, who provides unequivocal support for Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon in their sustained campaign of violence perpetuated against Israeli civilians and military targets. The relationship between Iran and Hamas is of particular importance. Hamas is part of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance”, a network of Iranian proxies that have been cultivated by Iran over the past few decades (The Economist, Nov 15 2023). Other groups that form part of this alliance are Hezbollah operating in South Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Islamic Resistance, an umbrella group for Shia Muslim Militias in Iraq. A drone attack that killed three US Service Members and injured 34 others in Jordan has been attributed to Islamic Resistance. In a press briefing on 31 January 2024, John Kirby stated the U.S. believes the attack was planned, resourced and facilitated by the Islamic Resistance (AP News, January 31 2024). One of the key players in that coalition are radical Iraqi Shiite paramilitary groups, namely Kata’ib Hezbollah, Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba and the lesser known True Promise Brigade. Iran uses these proxies to achieve its goal of becoming the regional leader in the Middle East and to destabilise Israel and its Western allies (Baker, January 31 2024).
Apart from the training and intelligence that Iran has provided to Hamas for decades, its funding is crucial for maintaining the group’s militaristic and terrorist activities. The US State Department places the support provided by Iran to armed Palestinian groups, chiefly Hamas, at approximately $100 million (Funk, 2024). Citing a Hamas source, the Wall Street Journal reports that Iran was instrumental in plotting the October 7th attacks, by Hamas, on Israel (Said, Faucon and Kalin, 2023). It is worth however, noting that Iran has unequivocally denied involvement in planning the attack. The country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised the attacks in a televised address. According to a Reuters translation of his comments, he stated “We kiss the hands of those who planned the attack on the Zionist regime” (Reuters, October 10 2023). On the other side of the coin, Israel is backed diplomatically, financially and militarily by the United States. The US National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, confirmed that the Biden administration has no plans to alter its Israel policy (RTE, May 29 2024). Russia and China have refused to condemn Hamas and Russia, whilst holding US policy responsible for the continued conflict in the Middle East. The proxy dimension of this conflict has complicated seemingly insurmountable obstacles to a resolution between Israel and Palestine, stymieing efforts to achieve a lasting peace.
Ukraine: The Proxy War Between Russia and The West
Meanwhile, Ukraine has also been exposed to the destructiveness of proxy wars. The United States and European countries have provided strong support to Ukraine, both politically and militarily. Russia, on the other side of the conflict, has the support of China and Turkey, who have not defended or endorsed the sanctions imposed on Russia, and who have also continued their trade relations with Russia. In another development, the economic and security relationship between Russia, China and Iran has been solidified in recent months, raising further concerns about the proxy nature of the conflict and the strategic alliances that are being fostered in the wake of the Ukraine war. Such major players on both sides of this conflict will surely hamper any efforts to reach a peaceful solution.
The proxy wars in Syria, Israel, and Ukraine reveal the geopolitical dynamics and rivalries at play in the international arena, whereby an internal conflict can metastasise into an international conflict between global camps. Rather than providing solutions to these conflicts, the intervention by external powers undermines and contradicts efforts to achieve peace and stability. Yet, these proxy wars continue, with dire consequences for the civilians of the affected States, and with long-term and far-reaching consequences for the international community and the rule of law.
References
AP News, ‘US Blames Group of Iran-Backed Militias for Deadly Drone Attack in Jordan as it Weighs Reprisals. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-us-navy-mideast-tensions-israel-hamas-red-sea-6d5662d09aad8aed0875025b75928ef5
Baker, M., The President’s Daily Brief, 31 January 2024
Barker, N., ‘Who Will Rule in Syria? Fragmented Sovereignty and the Problems of Transition’, Strife, 21 March 2014. Available at: https://www.strifeblog.org/2014/03/21/who-will-rule-in-syria-fragmented-sovereignty-and-the-problems-of-transition/
Cook, J. & Vale, G., ‘From Daesh to ‘Diaspora’: Tracing the Women and Minors of Islamic State’, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, July 2018
Dabashi, H., The Arab Spring: The End of Postcolonialism, London: Zed Book Ltd., 2012
Fawcett, L., ‘States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities’ (2017) 93 International Affairs, 937
Funk, L., Iran’s Leader: ‘We Kiss the Hands’ of Those Behind Israel Attack. Available at: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-s-leader-we-kiss-the-hands-of-those-behind-israel-attack/ar-AA1hY9bx
Hinnebusch, R., ‘Proxy Wars and Spheres of Influence in Post-Isis-Syria’, IEMed. Available at: https://www.iemed.org/publication/proxy-wars-and-spheres-of-influence-in-post-isis-syria/
Kounalakis, M., “China’s Position on International Intervention: A Media and Journalism Critical Discourse Analysis of its Case for “Sovereignty” versus “Responsibility to Protect” Principles in Syria” (2016) 1(3) Global Media and China, 149
Mabon, S. & Royle, S., The Origins of ISIS, London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2017
UNHCR (2023, March 14), Syria Refugee Crisis Explained. Available at: https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/
O’Connor. T., ‘What’s Happening in Syria? Everything You Need to Know About Proxy War Between U.S., Russia, Iran and Turkey’, Newsweek, April 10, 2018
OHCHR (2023, May 11), Behind the Data: Recording Civilian Casualties in Syria. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2023/05/behind-data-recording-civilian-casualties-syria#:~:text=By%202022%2C%20an%20estimated%20306%2C887,human%20rights%20and%20statistics%20experts
Reuters, Iran Says Tehran was not Behind Hamas Attacks on Israel. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-khamenei-says-tehran-was-not-behind-hamas-attack-israel-2023-10-10/
RTE, ‘US Says It’s Not Changing Israeli Policy Despite Rafah Strike’, 29 May 2024. Available at: rte.ie/news/middle-east/2024/0529/1451800-gaza/
Said, S., Faucon, B. & Kalin, S., ‘Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks’, Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2023
Sterman, D. & Rondeaux, C. (2019, February 20), Twenty-First Century Proxy Warfare: Confronting Strategic Innovation in a Multipolar World. New America. Available at: https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/twenty-first-century-proxy-warfare-confronting-strategic-innovation-multipolar-world/
The author’s short discussion of the Russo-Ukrainian war is misleading and lacks sources. Her discussion is a good example of westsplaining, which is surprising to read in 2024, given that this phenomenon has been criticised a lot over the last two years. I recommend the author to read more academic literature (especially publications of Eastern European scholars) about this war, an inter-state armed conflict which started with the Russian invasion of the Crimean Peninsula in February 2014. Put differently, it has been an international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine from the very beginning. Moreover, to call this war “the Ukraine war” is an insult to Ukrainian civilians, about whom the author seems to care. If the author indeed cared about Ukrainian civilians, she would not blame Western powers for undermining “efforts to achieve peace and stability”. Without foreign military aid, Ukraine is likely to have been occupied by the Russian armed forces and Ukrainians would have been subjected to mass atrocities similar to what has actually happened in the Ukrainian territories which have been under the Russian occupation even for several weeks, for example the Kyiv region. The author’s bothsidesism not only downplays Russia as an aggressor state, but it also undermines Ukraine’s right to self-defence, the right of Ukrainians to self-determination and Western states’ efforts to help Ukrainians survive as a nation.
LikeLike
Dr. Jean Molloy highlights the serious problem of proxy wars. One may call it the problem of mutual mistrust and distrust, geo-strategic competition, innate hostilities, imperialistic ambitions and/or aggressive nature of those who enjoy inflicting direct or indirect wars upon others. Notwithstanding the bitter experiences of past generations with wars, the hard fact is that there are many actors in the anarchic international system who have an insatiable appetite for wars. The constantly evolving international legal system and a host of international organisations meant for pacific dispute settlement, somehow, are overlooked or rather trampled upon by the war-hungry and blood-thirsty. Thus, the age-old question is “Who will bell the cat?”.
LikeLike