AL-BAHRIA CSS INSTITUTE

(Place of success)

Proxy wars and the role of external elements

Introduction

Proxy war: Two countries fight with each other on the land of a third country by promoting
non-state actors.
External elements: These are non-state actors.

Discussion

The topic can be discussed in two major contexts:

I: Pak-US relations

After 9/11, the UNSC passed three resolutions one after another. The UNSC passed one
resolution, 1368 on September 12, 2001, and two resolutions, 1373 and 1377 on September
28, 2001. In these resolutions, the UNSC demanded global cooperation against the menace of
terrorism, besides declaring al-Qaeda the number one enemy of the world peace. All
countries except Afghanistan led by the Taliban got ready to cooperate with the UN.

Pakistan had to play its role in the operation “Enduring Freedom” launched by the USA and
its coalition partners such as the UK called the “coalition of the willing”. From the choice
given by USA President George W Bush “either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists”, Pakistan had to choose to side with the coalition of the willing led by the USA.
This point signified the first major change in Pakistan’s foreign policy in the wake of 9/11.
The coalition of the willing demanded, among others, from Afghanistan to hand over it
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members to be tried in the court of law but Afghanistan
somehow turned down the demand. The tension between the coalition of the willing and
Afghanistan got mounted and consequently Pakistan had to change its policy towards
Afghanistan. Pakistan stopped recognizing anymore the government of Mullah Omar and
asked Afghanistan to comply with the demands of the coalition. Afghanistan did not listen to
Pakistan’s requests. The coalition of the willing attacked Afghanistan in October 2001. This
was the beginning of the War on Terror. To save their lives, thousands of Taliban and
hundreds of al-Qaeda members relocated from Afghanistan to the tribal belt of Pakistan
while some al-Qaeda members fanned out across the country especially to urban cities of
Pakistan.

On June 1, 2002, the then USA President George W Bush gave a policy statement in his
speech in the following words: [W]e will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise
our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively against … terrorists, to prevent them from
doing harm against our people and our country.
Comment: This part of the statement is also called an expression of the pre-emptive strike
doctrine of the US. In the statement, the US has shown its resolve to act unilaterally even.

In his address, George Bush further said: We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their
terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against

21 Babar Block, New Garden Town, Near Barkat Market Lahore

0300-4469650 0333-4438610 042-35911609 Page 1
 AL-BAHRIA CSS INSTITUTE
(Place of success)

the United States and our allies and friends…The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of
inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves,
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.
Comment: This point is important when one tries to understand the willingness of the USA to
bypass the international bodies such as the United Nation Security Council (UNSC), in case
the USA is threatened by any country, whether it is Afghanistan or Iraq.

Subsequent developments:
 In 2004, drone strikes started and with that the sovereignty of Pakistan was
challenged.
 In March 2009, the US President Barack Obama announced the Af-Pak strategy.
Through this strategy, he announced to include the tribal area of Pakistan in
Afghanistan for operation purposes to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and [its]
allies in the future”.
 In October 2009, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act was passed asking Pakistan to destroy
Afghanistan-specific terrorist network such as the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani
network. The Act also demanded from Pakistan to destroy India-specific terrorist
network such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba in Muredke near Lahore. The Act offered
Pakistan US aid $ 7 billion over five years.
 In May 2011, the US Marshal raided a compound in Abbottabad and killed Osama
bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda.

II: Pak-India relations

 In December 2001, five militants belonging allegedly to Lashkare Tayyaba (LeT) and
Jaishe Mohammad (JeM) attacked Indian Parliament. This led to Pak-India military
stand-off in 2001-2002. Moreover, this incident heralded the failure of the Sundarji
Doctrine.
 In 2004, India popularized its Cold Start doctrine against Pakistan. This doctrine
replaced Sundarji Doctrine (1981-2004) to confront Pakistan.
 In November 2008, a dozen of militants belonging allegedly to LeT launched 12
coordinated attacks in various parts of Mumbai killing more than 100 people. It was
alleged that the militants were Pakistan nationals.
 In January 2016, four militants belonging allegedly to JeM attacked Indian airbase at
Pathankot, India, and killed several police personnel.
 In September 2016, India has claimed to have done a surgical strike on the militant
launch pads across the Line of Control (LoC) in Azad Kashmir. Pakistan denied any
such happening.
 In November, 2016, a submarine of Indian navy violated Pakistan’s maritime space
and a drone crossed over Pakistan’s border. The submarine was pushed back while
the drone was shot down.
Comment: On Mumbai attacks, India was so infuriated that it announced to toe the strategy
of George Bush to undertake “pre-emptive” strikes against the militant hideouts in the part of
Kashmir called Azad (independent) Kashmir which is on working terms with Pakistan.

21 Babar Block, New Garden Town, Near Barkat Market Lahore

0300-4469650 0333-4438610 042-35911609 Page 2
 AL-BAHRIA CSS INSTITUTE
(Place of success)

Secondly, India also threatened to use drone strikes to eliminate militant camps of Lashkar-e-
Tayyaba from Mureedke. Thirdly, India was ready to act unilaterally. No doubt, international
community interfered and Pakistan showed its eyes to India to subside the three-pronged
threat, yet the threat is not over yet. Fourthly, India is still insisting on Pakistan to bring the
elements behind those attacks to justice. The USA also indirectly carried out the same
demand in its Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act of October 2009. Fifthly, On bilateral talks on
mutually disputed issues such as Kashmir, India has put the demand bringing to justice the
facilitators and planners of the Mumbai attack on the top; consequently, the future of Indo-
Pak talks is still in limbo, despite peace overtures initiated by incumbent Prime Minister of
Pakistan Mian Nawaz Sharif.

Critical analysis:
1. The post-9/11 crisis was so serious that in order to show their solidarity the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation (NATO) invoked first time Article 5 to reaffirm its resolve that an attack
on one member country (i.e. the US) would be considered an attack on all NATO’s member
countries and so much so that Australia invoked Article 4 of ANZUS Treaty, a trilateral
security treaty between Australia, New Zealand and USA.
2. Apparently, there is no policy statement linking the change of US policy towards Pakistan
in 2009 with the Mumbai attacks of 2008. However, the bad impression created by the
Mumbai massacre on the international community cannot be overlooked.
3. Indian atrocities on Kashmiris are continuing for ten months. Pakistan raises objection on
human rights abuses in Indian-held Kashmir. Pak-India bilateral talks are not being held and
if held not Kashmir but terrorism tops the agenda.
4. The military operation, Zarb-e-Azb, is a testament to this fact that Pakistan has recognized
the threat of terrorism coming from the Taliban. In fact, the attack on Karachi Airport left the
government with no choice but to give in to the plea of the army to launch an operation.
5. India has several times showed its intention to launch pre-emptive strike across the LoC.
6. With Narendra Modi becoming Indian President in May 2014 and Donald Trump
becoming the US President in November 2016, the threat of launching pre-emptive strikes
against Pakistan exists more than before from both Afghanistan and India. The way the
Indian lobby has helped Trump win US elections, it is feared that Trump would side with
India in case India violates Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Conclusion

In the modern world, proxy wars have found their place replacing conventional wars and
their actors (i.e. states). This point has introduced new challenges to the UN how to keep the
world peace intact. Moreover, this point has also alerted countries (or states) to protecting
their borders from the entry of non-state actors and to finding a way to deter an opponent
from sending non-state actors to meet any objective.

21 Babar Block, New Garden Town, Near Barkat Market Lahore

0300-4469650 0333-4438610 042-35911609 Page 3