The end of the Cold War was one of the few historical
moments in which people around the world looked forward to a future that
promised to be more just and peaceful for everyone. The Berlin Wall was
finally torn down, following years of tireless civil society activism
in one of the world’s few peaceful revolutions. Liberal democratic
systems seemed to be spreading everywhere, compelling Francis Fukuyama
to craft the (nowadays often-scorned) argument that “The End of History”
– and consequently the cessation of constant conflict – had finally
arrived with the falling of the Iron Curtain.
The promising world 'peace dividend', a term initially coined by US president
George H.W. Bush and UK prime minister
Margaret Thatcher,
was on everyone’s lips. Hope was in the air. The Soviet Union and
United States vowed to work together to further cut down on a nuclear
arsenal that could have blown up the world many times over. And they
also seemed to be hard at work getting rid of another major – and often
underestimated – impediment to peace: proxy wars, the type of war waged
in the developing world for most of the Cold War, from Latin America to
Central Asia to the Horn of Africa.
These were wars in which the Soviet
Union and US did not directly fight, but paid and favored local
fighters, often through highly classified operations and byzantine
financial networks that have inspired generations of spy novelists.
Before the Cold War, colonial regimes paid local proxies to advance
their agendas and “divide and conquer”.
As the Cold War finally came to a close, it was hoped and
anticipated that weapon donations would be replaced by UN Peacekeepers
and a new generation of NGO activists. Indeed, the new crop of
peacemakers seemed to be more liberated. Free from the stifling
imperatives of geopolitics, they could implement deals that had
previously died prematurely at the conference tables of diplomats,
anxious over the advances of an enemy superpower. The tit-for-tat strategies that would reap destruction seemed to be a thing of yesteryear.
The “War to End all Wars” is a coinage that stems from the First World
War. In the global public imagination: the Cold War would be the real
“War to End all Wars.” Following its conclusion, an era of enduring
peace was within immediate reach. Or so it seemed.
Fast forward 28 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and few such
promised realities seem to have materialized. On the contrary, we have
entered a new era of proxy wars.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,Yemen, Somalia etc.
To bring these complex wars to a halt, we have to be very precise about
what keeps them going. Saudi Arabia and Iran, probably the two main
players in proxy wars in a destabilizaion of the Middle Eastern region
that is steadily increasing, fund proxy forces to bolster their versions
of Islam—Sunni and Shiite Islam, respectively. It is safe to assume
that from the perspective of Riyadh and Teheran, furthering sectarian
interests, inextricably intertwined with access to resources and
geopolitical influence, are of more importance than peace in the region.
But it is not only sectarian strife—often highlighted in
the western media—but also global unregulated capitalism that pours
kerosene on a Middle East that is already in flames.
Western
weapon companies see the newly emerging proxy wars as momentous
opportunities for increased revenues. During a 2015 conference of
Lockheed Martin in Palm Beach Florida, its executive vice president
Bruce Tanner predicted “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria.
Similarly, as the Intercept reports, Raytheon chief executive Tom
Kennedy spoke of “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across
the board in multiple countries in the Middle East.” Referring to Saudi
Arabia, Kennedy elaborates, “It’s all the turmoil they have going on,
whether the turmoil is occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the
Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.” And sure
enough, stocks for arms have soared in recent years.
But
it is not only weapons but also oil which disincentivizes policy makers
from de-escalating proxy wars. As Christopher Davidson, who the
Economist called “one of the most knowledgeable academics” writing about
the Middle East, shows in his 688-page long tome “Shadow Wars: The
Secret Struggle for the Middle East,” how many covert operations in the
Middle East were historically supported to advance the explicit
geopolitical or economic interests of the funders.
According to
Davidson, the emergence of the US as a major oil producer has motivated
US policy makers (Trump included) to let Saudi forces engage in exhausting proxy wars
throughout the region so that a weakened Saudi Arabia is forced to sell
its state assets.
Whatever the precise motivations, aside from the publicly
touted humanitarian rationales, oil and weapons play a role in the
decisions made by states, even when lives are at stake.
But
whatever the argument, the evidence in support of proxy wars as an
effective means in the interest of peace is scarce. At least this is the
case if one follows the analysis coming from the proverbial mouth of
the horse, the CIA. The spy agency has funded proxy fighters for most of
its history.
Reportedly president Obama, at least an initial skeptic in
the use of proxies, was interested in finding out if funding insurgents
generally accomplish the stated strategic goals and commissioned an
internal study.
The report concluded that conflicts were not decided in the interest of
the US following the funding of proxy actors, unless, according to the
report, US personnel were on the ground along with the proxies. The
notable exception—according to the study—was the support for the
Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. However, although the
Mujahidin did ultimately chase the illegally invading Soviet forces out
of the country, Afghanistan did not regain stability. One thing to come
out of this instability was the merging of the Mujahidin into Al Qaida:
the very same enemy the US fights in the current global 'War on Terror'.
This is not just one war, but multiple new proxy wars that cause
immense suffering and which have, according to the Global Terrorism
Index, contributed to an almost nine-fold increase in deaths caused by
terrorism between 2000 and 2016. If we consider the entire historical
context, the Afghanistan example serves, at best, as a very cautionary
tale.
Tthe Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), demonstrates that 2014 saw an
increase in the number of active conflicts and also the casualties from
battle. Forty armed conflicts were active in 2014, whereas in 2013 34
conflicts were designated active. The increase in conflicts since 1999
stood at 18 percent. Whatever gains were brought about by the 'peace
dividend', they have been reversed, with people all over the world
paying the greatest price.
President Donald Trump, by contrast, initially critical of Hillary
Clinton’s foreign policy, has stepped up military activities since he
took office. For example, drone strikes, an important component in the
theater of war in Yemen, have gone up by 432 percent and his $ 110 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia also won't help in getting hostilities slowed down.
A new type of vigorous and principled peace movement must be formed in
this time of crisis. Peace movements in rich countries should join
Middle Eastern peace movements that rally for more democratic and less
sectarian governance. Social movements can become stronger by
integrating divergent points of view, histories and ideologies, which
inform interpretations of complex conflicts. It necessarily has to look
at the various internal roots of conflict, and also at how foreign
governments, from Moscow and Washington to Riyadh and Teheran, fuel
conflicts.
Supporting and holding political platforms accountable will
be key to demilitarizing political ideologies and stopping the world in
its “ruinous race” to global war, to use the words of Gorbachev. More
often than not, a call to arm a party to a conflict prolongs said
conflict.
The public’s immediate question with regards
to conflicts probably shouldn’t be “Whom should we support militarily?”
Instead, we should more seriously consider questions such as “Who keeps a
conflict going?” and “How can we de-escalate it?”
Somehow we the people—who, against all odds, want to raise our
children in a more peaceful world—have to let our politicians know that
arms should be removed from most regions of conflict.
Far from
being out of touch with reality, the global peace movement—though
worryingly weakened—in fact holds the most realistic solutions to
conflict. Given the data, it is clear that negotiation with the actors
in a conflict is the best route to peace. De-escalation is the only
framework in tune with the realities of the contemporary world as well
as the lessons of recent history.
We the people have to compel and force if necessary regional and global
political forces to work towards de-escalating conflicts. Challenging the
financial conglomerates that bring weapons into the hand of proxies may be
one of the most effective ways to do so.
Please get out of your comfort zone and act- the future of your children and grand-children are at stake.
EU-Digest
