POWER PLAYS: EXPLORING POWER AND INTERVENTION IN PROXY WARS By Ryan Justin Youra Under the guidance of Professor Benjamin Jensen, School of International Service Submitted to the University Honors Program of American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts University Honors In International Studies Spring 2014 American University Washington, D.C. 20016 Power Plays: Exploring Power and Intervention in Proxy Wars Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 2 Proxy Warfare .................................................................................................................................. 9 Dataset Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 17 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 24 Case Study of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War ...................................................................................... 32 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................... 39 Youra i Abstract Surprisingly, there is little academic study devoted to proxy wars, though proxy wars are a common occurrence throughout history. Focusing on the proxy supporter, this study examines the involvement of different types of actors in proxy wars in the Middle East to build the proxy war literature. What role does power play in proxy supporter-proxy fighter relationships? How do states’ different levels of power influence their interventions in local conflicts? This research explores these questions by building a dataset on proxy conflicts in the Middle East from 1945 to 2009 from the Uppsala Armed Conflict Dataset, the Non-State Actor Dataset, and open-source newspapers: The New York Times and The Washington Post. After examining several correlational relationships between the conflict type and the power, location, intensity, and variety of support of proxy supporters, this study finds that weak powers heavily participate and engage in proxy wars, particularly in intrastate and extrastate wars. Such findings stand contrary to the great power emphasis of the study the proxy war. The study then examines the 1973 Arab- Israeli War to explore possible mechanisms for supporter involvement in proxy wars and discovers that weaker powers can even play a role during the initial phases of a proxy relationship and thereby influence proxy wars much more than previously considered. Minor power states augment their power through the use of proxies. Though the Cold War dominates thought concerning proxy relationships, it is clear that minor powers largely dominate this type of war. Youra 1 Introduction Surprisingly, there is little academic study devoted to proxy war. As Andrew Mumford states, proxies are “historically ubiquitous and yet chronically under-analyzed.”1 This gap in the international relations literature misses a rather common feature of statecraft in the Westphalian system.2 Without an understanding of proxy wars, an understanding of intervention is incomplete. The general perception of proxy wars is one of great power interference, as perpetuated by the cold war. Dominant thinking in international relations also confirms this power bias; if “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power,”3 then we should expect to see the struggle in all forms of international relations—both above and below the surface of overt state action. While proxies are often dismissed as the work of major powers, they reveal a whole range of actions that occur under the surface level of international relations. This study attempts to add to the body of existing proxy war literature with a focus on the actors that support proxies. What explains actors’ active involvement as third parties to a conflict? What role does power play in proxy supporter-proxy fighter relationships? How do states’ different levels of power influence their interventions in local conflicts? This study explores the correlations between power, location, intensity, and variety of proxy supporters with their involvement in different types of wars. This study specifically examines the involvement of different actors in different types of proxy wars in the Middle East. This research explores these questions by building a dataset on proxy conflicts in the Middle East from 1945 to 2009 from the Uppsala Armed Conflict Dataset, the Non-State Actor Dataset, and open-source newspapers: The New York Times and The Washington Post. The study then 1 Andrew Mumford, "Proxy Warfare and the Future of Conflict," The RUSI Journal 158, no. 2 (2013): 40. 2 See Geraint Hughes, My Enemy's Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics (Portland, Or.: Sussex Academic Press, 2012). 3 Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations; the Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1967). Youra 2 examines the 1973 Arab-Israeli War to explore possible mechanisms for supporter involvement in proxy wars. The study demonstrates that weak powers heavily participate and engage in proxy wars, contrary to the great power emphasis previously designated to proxy wars. Weaker powers can even play a role during the initial phases of a proxy relationship and thereby influence proxy wars to a higher degree than previously considered. Re-conceptualizing proxy wars as tools available for any state has implications for the continued study of proxy wars and future security threats. Literature Review In order to understand the role of proxies and their supporter states, it is necessary to first examine the intervention literature. Proxy warfare is inherently a form of intervention in that it involves the actions of a third-party state in an external conflict. While a later section will expand on this rather basic definition of proxy warfare, this focus on intervention serves as a starting point. External intervention presents a challenge to the Westphalian concept of sovereignty. Under the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the European powers affirmed the separate jurisdiction of each state over its own territory. This understanding can even be traced back to the Treaty of Augsburg in 1555, when the absolute right of sovereigns in religious matters was confirmed. According to David Armstrong, interest, rules, and institutions maintain order, and therefore the international system is maintained by a general pattern of interaction among states and international actors.4 Under the practice of sovereignty, states have exclusive control over their territory. This has led to the converse norm of non-intervention in state affairs. Essentially, rights 4 J. D. Armstrong, Farrell Theo, and Lambert Helene, International Law and International Relations (Cambridge [U.K.]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 5-6. Youra 3 to sovereign domain belong to the state as a participant in the international system.5 This principle has been reaffirmed in the League of Nations and later the United Nations Charter, and thus, there appears a general preference against intervention within the international system.6 While the English school sees this imposition of order as the foundation of an international society, the Realist tradition views the continual violation of the rule as evidence of an international system less grounded by rules than a society. While this preference for sovereignty exists, it is impossible to dismiss interventions throughout the international system’s history. Hans Morgenthau dates intervention back to the Greeks.7 Hedley Bull states that coercive intervention is endemic to the international system.8 Several of the studies reviewed here make similar claims about the pervasiveness of intervention in international affairs. There are several slightly differing definitions of intervention, though they generally agree on the violation of another state’s sovereignty and the intertwined aspect of power. If sovereignty is the control of one’s own domestic affairs and exclusion of others from this jurisdiction, intervention is defined as action outside of a state’s jurisdiction or territory and within the sphere of another state’s jurisdiction or territory.9 As the root word implies, intervention is the act of one or more countries figuratively ‘coming between’ another state and its existing territory/jurisdiction. Intervention implies that the ideal of sovereign, autonomous actors is not completely reachable.10 5 Friedrich Kratochwil, "Soveriegnty as Dominium: Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?," in Beyond Westphalia?: National Sovereignty and International Intervention, ed. Gene M. Lyons and Mastanduno Michael (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1995). 6 Hedley Bull, Intervention in World Politics (New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1984), 3. 7 Hans J. Morgenthau, "To Intervene or Not to Intervene," Foreign