Citation

Duner B. J. Peace Res. 1981; 18(4): 353-361.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1981, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338101800404

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Military intervention in civil wars by smaller states has often been interpreted as a sign of the increasing importance of indirect intervention as a means of foreign policy: the smaller intervening states are seen to have acted as the proxy of a major power. The Angola conflict in particular has been cited in this connection, and Cuba is often said to have intervened on behalf of the Soviet Union. Other examples have also been mentioned. However, it is not always clear what characterizes a proxy in this sense. This article tries to identify relevant criteria, and argues that a reasonable definition of a proxy relationship must be formulated in terms of power. Some of the instances of intervention by proxy mentioned in the literature are then examined in the light of this definition. In none of these is it possible to demonstrate that the intervening state actually acted as proxy for another. This conclusion may be the result of defective instruments of analysis, but it may also reflect the fact that interventions by proxy have not actually taken place.