By Umidjon Hasanov, 3d year student at UWED, intern at IAIS
Introduction
Primary subjects of international law, in other words, states, must always act in accordance with international norms when they enter into relations with their counterparts and should not break the rules established by international bodies. However, big countries with relatively more power in the global arena, sometimes, intentionally or non-intentionally break those rules to keep their strategic interests irrelevant and prioritized. In most cases, direct measures were taken, such as direct intervention, armed conflict, blockade, quarantine, etc before the nuclear power came into existence which was accepted during 1940s. From that moment, global powers sought some alternative ways of intervention with low risk of nuclear threat, and low cost of direct confrontation. Today, global players with nuclear capability have expanded (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel) which increases the risk of direct conflict. In order to lower the risk, they started using indirect ways of intervention, by establishing links with local agents, what academics call “proxy agents”. Countries that are going to intervene in these regional issues, usually show their activeness through political, financial and military support as much as is needed to maintain the balance of influence.
Wars by proxy are indeed considered a “luxurious” feature of Cold War era. The Soviet Union and the United States used the small states and non-state actors to perform their tasks. Therefore, some scholars claim that Cold War era proxy war studies were aligned with global power competition theory. During the Cold War, in Afghanistan, both sides knew it very well if either of them gained control of the region or even a part of the country, it might create an imbalance, Soviet Union did not want American participation in political games near its southern borders, the American side did not want either Soviet expansion in the southern region of “Heartland”. Accordingly, it eventually led to a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which was already experiencing internal armed conflicts with Islamic movements) in December 1979 to support the communist government, which caused American intervention in the conflict through its financial and military support for Islamic movements fighting against the communist government.
Primary motives from proxy war
Before clearing up what the motives of proxy wars are, it is necessary to give a clear explanation “proxy relations” to separate it from traditional alliances. In proxy relations, government, movements, military companies or other subjects (playing the role of agent) usually act on behalf of and with the instructions of their principal in the region. However, allies usually consider themselves to have equal status to act, because the interests of both counties correlate in most cases. Interestingly, to start successful proxy relationship, both a principal and an agent should have a mutual need for strategic support which is not the case in traditional allies. In the global arena, allies’ positions sometimes may not come together and even contradict each other. The reason is that traditional allies have no such inevitable need for each other and have enough power to act independently.
In every case, the balance of power in conflict-prone regions is the main objective of proxy existence. Middle East, Africa, South America, and even Eastern Europe is also on the list of conflict-prone regions. The principal also has to maintain its activity in the region:
to expand its political influence in the region;
to decrease political role of rival states in the region;
to decrease the dominance of rival state in the region;
to sustain the balance of power between neighboring states in the region;
to create geopolitical turbulence in a distant region which is under the influence of a rival state;
to back up a buffer state in order to keep the secure zone between the principal and antagonist rival state.
These motives may justify the actions of the principal, even though it is not publicly announced by either global player. In fact, the history of proxy wars shows that none of these motives are static for any global player. The emergence of proxy motives can be classified according to the region where they are taking place and global players pursuing them. In most of the Middle East proxy cases, global powers, such as the United States, Russia and regional powers like Iran have been using it to decrease the role of each other in the region. For example, Iran continuously supports Hezbollah in Lebanon because it is the best low risk way of keeping back Israel from improving its political position in the region or Russia’s extensive support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime during the Syrian civil war was an alternative way to sustain its position in this distant region.
To be clear, for a hiring state to better influence the political stability of the region is the objective of using proxy networks but there are other separate motives for proxies themselves too. Proxy agents also pursue their interests through their active role in regional issues by collaborating with their principals. These motives differ according to their nature, for armed group, religious or ethnic minorities, terrorist organizations or even for a small government. These motives include:
to survive in harsh political conditions of the region;
to strengthen proxy’s political and ideological positions;
to gain political authority in the region;
to react actively on religious, ethnic and racial policies, and changes of the region;
to earn money.
The last one is usually seen in cases involving the military organization. These motives are not static, they can change similarly when the ators are replaced. Additionally, these motives can sometimes coexist in one case. For example, in Lebanon, the political party “Hezbollah” usually gets technical, financial and military support from Iran to strengthen its political role and authority in Lebanese parliament, also to survive amid Israel’s harsh attacks. During the Cold War period, People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) under the leadership of Nur Muhammad Taraki (1978-79) came to power through a revolution and sought immediate support from the Soviet Union, first of all to strengthen the ideological and political position of PDPA and secondly, to survive in harsh geopolitical context.
Regions prone to conflicts
There is an ongoing debate among scholars why some parts of geopolitical structures are vulnerable to conflicts while others are stable and moderate. In this regard, different academics express different opinions, for example, Stathis Kalyvas, political scientist at the University of Oxford, thinks that fragmented or incomplete territorial control creates the violence-prone zones. James Fearon, a political scientist at Stanford University, in his article, explains that conflicts in states are usually associated with weak state institutions and low income. In fact, both arguments are valid enough to take into account in monitoring the different situations. Nevertheless, there are several countries that have experienced conflicts and are experiencing even though mentioned factors do not exist in their cases. For example, Yugoslavia has experiences one of the most complex internal conflicts in Europe in the 1990s or Ukraine is experiencing since 2022. The reason behind this is not weak institutions or low income, but ethnic fragmentation and continuous confrontations.
The map of Cold War conflicts indicates that (1945-1991), the majority of them have been witnessed in fragile regions where the political system was fragmented, internal conflicts flourished or ideological and religious confrontations were intense. For example, proxies in China by two different superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, were indirectly involved in internal armed conflicts between the communist party and nationalists which eventually led to the establishment of the communist government. The case of the two Korean countries backed by two major powers is an ideal example with its typical features of soft proxy relations between the agent and principal and strong alliance mutually. North Korea has been considered a strong ally of the Soviet Union in the Korean peninsula while South Korea, especially, from the end of the 1970s started to be seen as a reliable, distant ally of the United States of America since it started its heyday in trade and heavy industry. In both cases, the relations of the two major powers with two regional countries were seen as purely interest-based relations. However, this pure theory is challenged with the fact that during the Korean war, foreign policy of the United States towards the Far East aligned with Domino theory’s implementation. For the United States, containment of communism is seen as the strongest vector of its actions. According to Harry Truman, the President of the United States, controlling the spread of Soviet communist ideology in one country of the region was important to the concept of “stop the first to save the rest”. For the Soviet Union, the impact of the United States on South Korea, its economic, technological and ideological penetration was an incalculable threat to Soviet interest in the Far East, therefore, the Soviet Union also tried to limit the pressure coming from Southern allies. The conclusion from the case demonstrates that political confrontation in one region by two different ideological backgrounds led to the fragmentation of one country into to two different countries.
The impact of proxy wars on developing countries and transition economies
In the twenty-first century, the new world order is being shaped by the emergence of new regional and global players. In fact, their international role is being highly assessed as majority of them are improving their economic and pragmatic relations with each other. According to the report announced by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, “This project focuses on eight “hinge states”—Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates—whose strategic choices will profoundly shape the future of the international order. These states navigate between established Western alliances and rising revisionist powers, making their preferences critical to whether global governance systems adapt or erode. By examining their identities, interests, and diplomatic behaviors, this project offers a framework for how the United States and its partners can more effectively engage with these actors and manage great power competition”.
However, the question regarding the current situation in developing countries and transition economies is still open to debate. In addition, how these proxy networks impact them, their international reputation and political development is the main theme of security discussions. Developing countries usually experience economically, politically, culturally and ideologically turbulent period and during these periods they are more vulnerable to proxy involvement. There are questions regarding the factors that attract proxies. How many are they and which of them are more serious compared to others? Here are some of them according to the author:
Strategic location of the country: some developing countries are located in fragile zones where they have borders with one or more major powers which creates double pressure compared to the distant version of the same case －
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Mexico, Pakistan - examples that have much higher risk of proxy wars. Kazakhstan is located in the region where it shares its borders with Russia and China, Ukraine is located as a buffer state between Russia and NATO which turns it into a good battlefield for political games. Mexico is the outhern neighbor of the United States also one of only two neighbors of it. Pakistan has a more complex case where it shares its borders with Iran, India, China and Afghanistan with whom it usually has mutual conflicts.
Countries with different ethnic, religious and language distinctions: in the majority of countries’ populations consist of ethnically, religiously and culturally different backgrounds which usually creates tensions of different groups －
Ukraine, India, Afghanistan, Iran - examples in which ethnic population geography is disproportionate, for example, in Iran, 25% of the total population are Azers while 9% are Kurds. In Afghanistan, 22% of the total population are Pashtuns. Russian minority groups in Ukraine which was almost 18% of the total population. These numbers indicate that these countries are more vulnerable to proxies compare to the single-ethnic countries.
India, Nigeria, Israel, Ethiopia - in these countries the percentage of religious minority groups is relatively high which indicates the existence of ideological disparities between them, for example, in India 15% of the population are Muslims, in Nigeria almost 50% of the population are Muslims, in Israel it is 18% and in Ethiopia 30%.
Countries with low income and poor living conditions: history shows that political and ideological situations in poor countries were unstable and easy to intervene in by external threats. In fact, low salaries, hunger and poor economic and social policies were seen as driving factors.
Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Congo - these countries are considered low-income countries with poor economic and social policy and in each of them political and social turbulence is high enough to create good proxies or other kind of conflicts. For example, in Syria prolonged civil war with the involvement of Russia and United States (2000’s-2025), First Congo War (1996-1997), Second Congo War (1998-2003), and Eastern Congo War (2000s- present) or Civil War in Afghanistan (1996-2001) indicates the significance of economic and cultural state of the country.
Weak state institutions and lack of the rule of law: institutional structure is important because an effective government and rule of law provide the stability, development, and a secure system. There are a number of examples where strong institutional structure and rule of law provide pure development and secure political environment.
Singapore, Japan, Luxembourg, Denmark and New Zealand - are considered leading countries in Government Effectiveness Index (-2.5 weak; 2.5 strong) in 2024. The lowest is 1.84 assessment given to New Zealand.
Denmark, Luxembourg, Finland, Switzerland and Singapore - are leading countries in Control of corruption index (-2.5 weak; 2.5 strong) in 2024. The lowest is 1.97 assessment given to Singapore.
New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, Denmark and Finland - according to the GPI (Global Peace Index), the composite index measuring the peacefulness of countries made up of 23 quantitative and qualitative indicators each weighted on a scale of 1-5. The lower the score the more peaceful the country and these countries were included in the top 10 countries of the world.
The impact of proxy wars on developing countries and transition economies is not measured continuously; the reason for that the term itself and its interpretation is not fully comprehensive to discuss it at the government level. However, there are several general concepts. These concepts include economic, political, ideological impacts.
Economic impacts - proxy wars or any other form of conflicts usually bring economic constrains and long-term crisis for the country which is actively involved in these wars as an agent. There are typical factors which lead to this consequence, first of all, continuous financial aid from its principals or in other word, “sponsors”, this is the “beautiful” logic of proxies, the sponsor always helps its player in the game. If there are more than one sponsor, then it will double or triple the economic pressure emerging within the country. This aid includes, weapons, money, credit, missiles, etc. In reality, developing countries usually face multiple challenges during their economic development and financial improvement. However, involvement in proxy conflicts ensures them the prolongation of these economic and financial constrains.
Political impact - proxy wars are considered as the best way to create a political crisis. Developing countries do not usually get involved in proxy games, the reason is obvious, it is the most destructive way to undermine the development mood. In practice, developing countries usually deal with international pressure, sanctions or at least criticism from outside for their internal policy on human rights, democracy and liberalization. However, what reaction they get for their actions as a proxy is nothing other than the escalation of the case. From outside possible reactions might include diplomatic pressure, political sanctions, isolation and other possible options. However, from inside, the situation might take a serious step, massive protests, armed conflicts, civil war, government overthrow, fragmentation of civilians, etc.
Ideological impact - for a strong leadership trust and support of its civilians is very important. Most developing countries usually announce neutralism, pragmatic relations with any country, respect for the territorial integrity of other countries, economic partnership as the primary principles of their foreign policy. These are generally accepted rules of international peace and security. Continuous involvement in conflicts undermines, firstly, the trust of civilians to their government, secondly, the reputation of the “young”, developing country. National ideology of the country which was formalized for a future development the first object that is destroyed as soon as this conflict expands. A nation whose general ambitions were based on modernization, development, and a peaceful life suffers from these conflicts and replaces its ambitions with hunger, stress, isolation, refuge and fear.
Conclusion
There is an ongoing debate on whether these proxy wars are useful for modern international relations or whether they are an unnecessary tool and should be eliminated by international norms and binding acts. On the one hand, it has been used to deter nuclear threats in different cases, from the aftermath of the WW2 to the present, however, on the other hand, proxies undermine the peaceful life of innocent people, foster continuous conflicts, and create religious, ethnic and racial tensions. The moral values of proxy wars are acceptable for both hiring state and agent, interference in regional issues and consolidation of power are taken as primary factors which create the motive.
Regions vulnerable to proxy wars are explained as territories where no any superpower has located its flag by means of “under the influence”. Apparently, those superpowers seek their stakes in those regions through different ways; governments, minority groups, political parties and movements, etc. The political, economic and social policy of countries, in majority of proxy cases, determines whether the region is ready for proxy wars or not. The more severe the situation becomes in the region, the more it is accepted as justification to start the proxy war. Countries that have crucial features that attract the proxies are counted and these crucial features include their strategic location, internal policy, ethnic and religious diversification, and economic-social state of the country, etc., which works as an assessment of readiness.
Countries with the highest vulnerability to proxy wars were counted, concluding that the majority of them are in Africa, Middle East and Southern Asia. The reason behind this is the economic, political and social policy crisis, lack of stable development and a poor institutional structure. The economic impact of proxy wars is a prolonged crisis, being financially dependent on others, especially on debtor countries (or a proxy principal), lack of industrial development and foreign investment. The political impact is isolation, sanctions, and international pressure, which mainly undermine the internal stability of the country, leading to a poly-crisis, massive protests or even government overthrow. The conclusion expresses that internal consequences are higher than external ones. Finally, the ideological impact of proxy wars, first of all, it undermines the national development morality of a nation, it damages the reputation of the country on the international arena.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
