Since the outbreak of the conflict in Yemen nearly ten years ago, it has been commonly referred to as a "proxy war," especially after the connections between local parties involved in the conflict and regional and international external forces emerged, far from the mutual accusations between the warring parties inside and outside the country.
Observers and followers, both inside and outside Yemen, whenever the intensity of the war increases, deduce the evidence and proof of this "proxy war" that is devastating Yemen, supported by the positions of external supporters of the warring parties, which are naturally local parties themselves.
The War and Proxy Peace
In the shadow of the prevalent term "proxy war" and its political and media prominence in various local conflicts, including the ongoing war in Yemen, its counterbalancing concept of "proxy peace" remains relatively unfamiliar. Even the warring parties themselves, who possess a deep understanding of the implications of proxy war and the significance of proxies in advancing the interests of their sponsors, have a limited grasp of the essence of proxy peace.
Proxy peace involves the utilization of intermediaries to negotiate and establish peace agreements on behalf of the supporting parties. It serves as an alternative approach that strives to achieve peace indirectly. By employing trusted representatives, proxy peace aims to overcome obstacles and facilitate dialogue between conflicting parties. These intermediaries act as conduits for communication, enabling discussions and negotiations that pave the way for the resolution of the conflict.
In fact, I had been tracking the concepts of proxy war and proxy peace since mid-last year while conducting a study on the subject, which was published by the Dimensions Center in May of last year (2023). In contrast to the abundance of discussions and writings on proxy war, there is a scarcity of literature concerning proxy peace. There seems to be a prevailing belief that proxies are only relevant in managing and exploiting wars and conflicts, utilizing their actions and outcomes.
Moreover, proxy wars have exerted a pervasive influence over numerous regions embroiled in armed conflicts across the globe, particularly those that emerged in the aftermath of World War II and the subsequent decades. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in certain Arab nations, where these protracted conflicts have endured for well over a decade.
The term "proxy war," alternatively known as "war by proxy," pertains to the dynamic developments and events unfolding in the Middle East. At its core, this concept posits that the warring factions on the ground are not driven solely by their own interests but are rather propelled by the interests of external powers that lend them support. These conflicts manifest as indirect confrontations between foreign forces transpiring within the territory of a third state.
Various definitions of proxy wars imply the existence of internal parties directly involved in the conflict, along with external parties participating indirectly. This involvement typically takes the form of support, funding, and backing. The internal party in this dynamic is considered the "proxy" for the external party, also known as the "principal" or "patron." Each party influences and is influenced by various factors related to their capacity to leverage the relationship and achieve desired goals and gains. Additionally, the nature of the relationship plays a significant role in attaining the intended impact.
The literature in the field of international relations still tends to overlook the connection between "proxy" dynamics and peacebuilding efforts, primarily due to the prevailing narrative surrounding proxy wars. However, recent studies have increasingly acknowledged that the intervention of patrons (external parties or principals) to exert pressure on their armed proxies (internal parties) and halt proxy conflicts can have implications for proxy peace. This is particularly evident in the context of the Yemeni war, where the United Nations, regional mediators, and international actors, including periodic negotiations hosted in the Omani capital, are leading ongoing efforts.
The term "proxy war," or "war by proxy," denotes the unfolding developments and occurrences in the Middle East, encapsulating the notion that "the warring factions on the ground are not solely motivated by their own interests but rather by the interests of external powers backing them." These conflicts are characterized as "indirect confrontations between foreign forces within the territory of a third state."
The notion that those who orchestrate proxy wars can also facilitate proxy peace through principled agreements is underscored by the ongoing Turkish-Russian talks on the Syrian conflict. This serves as a testament to the potential for achieving a proxy peace in Syria. The Syrian case stands as a prominent and illustrative example of proxy wars, shedding light on the intricate relationship between external principals, namely Russia, Turkey, and Iran, and internal proxies, represented by the Assad regime and the opposition.
Given Syria's pivotal role as a primary theater for the interplay between foreign principals and internal proxies within the realm of proxy wars, it presents a compelling opportunity for implementing a "proxy peace." Former High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, emphasized this last year when she called for a "proxy peace" in Syria, backed by the international community, in place of the devastating "proxy war" that has tragically claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands.
These statements, along with similar ones, serve to reinforce the intrinsic link between proxy wars and proxy peace, highlighting the notion that the initiation of a proxy war can indeed be curtailed through concerted efforts leading to a "proxy peace." In this context, influential external powers and involved actors in proxy conflicts provide financial and military support to internal factions, while actively working to exert pressure on their local proxies to achieve a peaceful resolution. If the engagement and support of external parties in bolstering internal warring factions ultimately define the conflict as a proxy war, then the active support and involvement of these external parties in pressuring their local proxies - be it through direct or indirect means - to cease hostilities and usher in a state of peace, can be deemed as a "proxy peace."
The Yemeni war: Unveiling its internal roots
While the Yemeni conflict has received significant backing and financial support from external actors, it is crucial to delve into the internal dynamics that have fueled this devastating war. At its core lies the Yemeni Shia movement, intricately linked to the Zaidi sect both religiously and politically. Since their loss of power during the September 1962 revolution, this movement has persistently sought to reclaim authority, firmly believing in the exclusive entitlement of the Hashemite dynasty, self-proclaimed as the "Al Al-Bayt," to hold the reins of power.
However, the Zaidi-Houthi ideology, known as Hadawiyyah, has encountered formidable resistance from Yemenis who have made significant strides towards democratic governance, political pluralism, and the peaceful rotation of power. These Yemenis perceive the Houthi movement as a regressive force, reviving an antiquated concept embodied by the Imamate state, which centers around the Hadawiyyah ideology. This ideology confers divine legitimacy solely upon those who trace their lineage back to Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein, the revered offspring of Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed. Consequently, armed conflicts have erupted not only between Zaidi-Houthi adherents and various segments of Yemeni society but also among different factions within the Zaidi-Houthi movement itself. These internal schisms have led to fratricidal wars, pitting kin and members of the same household against one another, each vying for the coveted mantle of the Imamate and ultimate authority.
The Hadawiyyah Imamate theory encounters substantial resistance from Yemenis, particularly due to its divergence from the significant progress made by Yemenis in terms of political advancements. Yemenis have achieved significant gains in establishing a republican system of governance, fostering democratic practices, and embracing the principle of peaceful power-sharing. Consequently, the current resistance movement comprises the majority of Yemenis who perceive the Houthi movement as a contemporary manifestation of an outdated ideology embodied by the historical Imamate state.
Continuing onward, the ongoing Yemeni war can be viewed as a continuation of a long chain of political and military conflicts that have plagued Yemen throughout its history. This includes the revolution against the Imamate in the north and the struggle for independence against colonial rule in the south, spanning over six decades.
This underscores the complex interplay between internal dynamics and external factors in shaping the Yemeni war. Therefore, it is imperative to address several key conditions in order to bring about an end to the hostilities. One crucial condition is the genuine willingness of the warring parties to engage in a meaningful settlement. Additionally, in cases where the conflict involves proxy warfare, with combatants acting as agents for external actors, the intentions and desires of these external sponsors become pivotal in the pursuit of peace.
Achieving sustainable peace in Yemen requires a comprehensive approach that acknowledges and addresses both the internal and external dimensions of the conflict. It necessitates a deep understanding of the historical context, the grievances of different factions, and the complexities of the power dynamics at play. Only through inclusive dialogue, genuine reconciliation efforts, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict can Yemen hope to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In my opinion, the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, followed by the Saudi-Houthi rapprochement, can serve as powerful incentives for peace in Yemen. When external parties involved in the conflict, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, demonstrate a willingness to engage in dialogue and reconciliation, it paves the way for potential breakthroughs in the peace process. This is because such shifts in external dynamics can influence the internal dynamics of the conflict and create an environment conducive to negotiation.
The concept of the "ripe moment," as conceptualized by Professor William Zartman, highlights the importance of timing in conflict resolution. Parties in conflict are more likely to engage in meaningful negotiations and seek resolution when they perceive that the costs of continuing the conflict outweigh the benefits. This could be due to factors such as exhaustion, a realization of the futility of further hostilities, or external pressures. Thus, when the warring parties reach this "ripe moment," they become more open to considering and accepting proposals on the table, even if they have been previously overlooked or rejected. It is during this phase that existing peace proposals gain traction and become attractive and acceptable to the parties involved.
While the support and involvement of external actors are crucial in facilitating peace, it is ultimately the warring parties themselves who must reach this "ripe moment" to achieve a sustainable resolution. External actors can encourage dialogue, provide incentives, and facilitate negotiations, but true peace can only be achieved when the internal parties are ready and willing to engage in reconciliation efforts.
Hence, it is essential for all stakeholders, both internal and external, to recognize the importance of the "ripe moment" and work towards creating an environment that fosters readiness for peace. This involves addressing underlying grievances, building trust, and demonstrating a genuine commitment to finding a mutually acceptable solution. Only through the collective efforts of all parties can Yemen hope to achieve a lasting and inclusive peace.
In conclusion, achieving lasting and inclusive peace in Yemen requires the collective efforts of all stakeholders. This includes the internal parties engaged in the conflict, as well as the external supporters who can play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and providing the necessary resources and expertise. By recognizing the importance of the "ripe moment" and working together towards a shared vision of peace, Yemen can move closer to a future of stability, prosperity, and harmony.
