The concept of Centre(s) of Gravity and the Crécy Campaign

 

       I.            Introduction

The concept of center of gravity (COG) is one that was developed by the Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz. It seeks to ensure that there is the effective development of an understanding of the manner that the strengths and weaknesses of military actors end up predicting their freedom of action on the battlefield.[1] Consequently, the COG is considered to be a source of strength when it comes to the military strategy. Therefore, it becomes essential to make sure that there is the promotion of an understanding of COGs as a means of attaining success on the battlefield. This concept is pertinent because it provides an insight into the manner that military strategies are able to undertake a diversity of missions based on the understanding of the way that strategy is applied by the enemy. As an essential aspect of military strategy, the COG is important in bringing about an effective conduct of campaigns in a manner that does not strain the military capabilities of the force involved.

An example of such a strategy can be seen in the Crecy campaign during the Hundred Years War, which was conducted by the English army under Edward III, throughout the north of France. The main objective of this campaign was to ensure that this region was so devastated that the king of France, Philip VI, would be forced to take the field in a battle that would decide who gained dominance over a considerable part of the country.  It is one of the most famous campaigns of the medieval period which saw the landing of English forces in Normandy and the devastation of a considerable part of the duchy prior to the capitulation of the French king Philip VI in Calais after eighteen months. The use of strategy in the war by Edward III is significant because it allowed for the achievement of the outcome. It is therefore pertinent to ensure that there is the understanding of the base of power (COG) in a manner that its movement is what determines the outcomes of conflict. In this way, the presence of the COG is significant in showing the way that the Crecy campaign ended up in Edward III’s favor based on the way that he took advantage of it. This paper seeks to determine how strategic actors determine COGs and the way that they assist in the analysis of the Crecy Campaign through a consideration of COG based on the Eikmeier method, Butler’s Godzilla COG determination method, and the critical factors analysis method.

    II.            Eikmeier Method

The Eikmeier methodology is one that makes the proposal that the COG is the main entity when it comes to the attainment of the objectives that an actor has set for itself.[2] This can be seen in the manner that in preparation for a field battle, a force led by Edward the Black Prince, Edward III’s eldest son, was tasked with torching as many towns and villages within the Seine Valley in France.[3] The latter strategy was aimed at making sure that there was the attainment of multiple objectives including providing food for the English army, striking terror into the locals, the acquisition of loot as well as noble prisoners, and finally, to ensure that the economic base of the French opponents was severely weakened. In this way, it would be extremely difficult for the French to be able to field a formidable army against the invading English, which would essentially accomplish Edward III’s goal of attaining the expansion of his territory in France. However, the main target of this strategy was forcing Philip VI of France to take the field against the English army as a means of making sure that a decisive battle was fought. Therefore, Edward III’s COG in this case was that it his capacity to attain all the objectives that he had set for himself prior to the Crecy campaign. The campaign was a means to an end which ensured that there was the promotion of a scenario where the enemy was forced into taking actions that would be advantageous to Edward III and the English.

The identification of a COG is a process that involves six essential steps. The first of these is that it is necessary to ensure that the desired ends or objectives of an actor are identified. For Edward III, the war in France was critical because it allowed him to expand his territory while at the same time rejecting the suzerainty of the French king over his holdings in France.[4] Moreover, Edward aimed at making sure that he pressed his claim to the French throne through his mother, Isabella, who was the daughter of Philip IV of France. The desired end was to ensure that he gained a considerable hold on as much territory as possible in France and if the situation allowed, claim the French throne for himself by right of descent from Philip IV, his maternal grandfather. Moreover, he wanted to ensure that he maintained control and secured his holdings in Gascony, which were threatened by the French king. Therefore, the actions that he undertook during the Crecy campaign were to make sure that he enhanced his hold over France. He divided his forces into three, with the first going south to protect Gascony, the second smaller force aimed at tackling the main French force, while the third landed in Normandy and sought to create as much devastation as possible to ensure that the French king was forced to take the field.[5] The significance of this situation cannot be underestimated because it started with Edward III being in a very strong position since he had the advantage of having firm objectives which were carried out during the Crecy campaign. The devastation of large parts of Normandy ensured that the attention of the French king was gained while at the same time allowing the English force to gain considerable food supplies as well as loot which went to funding the campaign.

Another significant aspect that needs to be considered is the way that the actor involved aims at achieving his specific objectives. This is important because it ensures that there is the consideration of the critical capabilities so that effective identification and targeting can be achieved. The manner through which Edward III conducted the Crecy campaign is significant because he took advantage of the relative weakness of the French as well as the considerable organization and efficiency of the English tax collection system in a manner that proved favorable.[6] By undertaking the campaign of devastation against the French, especially in northern France, Edward III was essentially making sure that his rival did not have the economic base which could be used to fight an extensive war against him. He prevented an effective French counteroffensive through the use of fear and economic warfare; bringing about the destruction of the economy in the regions where his forces were present. The importance of the campaign can therefore be seen through the way that Edward III made use of his capabilities to weaken his enemy in preparation to attaining a victory that would have allowed him to gain the objectives of his presence in France. The targeting of the French civilian population and the terror that was inflicted by the English forces of Edward III allowed for the prevention of an effective French response to the English invasion; including the collection of much needed taxes, which for the French civilian population had become virtually permanent.[7] Instead, the center of gravity was on the side of the English, which ensured that their actions were critical to destroying their enemies.

Another factor to consider is the means through which the critical capabilities of the actor are executed are identified. This is a process that was put in place during the Crecy campaign because the original plan of action involved Edward III dividing his forces into three in order to more effectively take on the French.[8] Thus, despite having a smaller force than that of the French, Edward III was able to take more decisive action through the process of effective planning that was undertaken through the use of spies in France as well as planning for the manner through which his army would move and be supplied for the entire venture. The victories that the English had were therefore based on previous planning, which had taken place prior to the beginning of the campaign. The Crecy campaign was the result of long term planning on the part of Edward III in response to the French moves against his holdings in France, which resulted in a scenario where he was forced to act in order to defend his interests. Therefore, the critical capabilities of the English seem to have been analyzed and executed accordingly because Edward III had the leisure to plan his campaign as effectively as possible prior to undertaking it. The same cannot be said of the French, who seem to have been forced to counter the moves made by the English. However, countering strategies that were not wholly known meant that the French response was reactionary to such an extent that it was not as effective as it should have been.

Moreover, there is the need to ensure that there is a listing of the means that is possessed by the entity to ensure that it effectively achieves the ends that it has created. This is a significant process because it is one that involves the development of a scenario where the planning process is based on the means of the entity involved to conduct the campaigned aimed at attaining its objectives. In the case of the Crecy campaign, Edward III took advantage of the various strengths possessed by England as a means of conducting the battles that were fought against the French. The force that was put on the field, for example, possessed longbows, which were highly effective against the French forces, which relied more on crossbows.[9] The crossbow took longer to set and fire while the English longbow took a shorter time, meaning that the latter was more devastating than the latter. It is also important to note that the English were focused more on ensuring that there was the promotion of a scenario where the French were incapable of launching a more formidable resistance. This meant that Edward III took advantage of the more unified English taxation and governing system as well as a bigger tax base than that of the king of France, as seen through the addition of Wales, in creating a massive financial base that could sustain the war for longer.[10] The same cannot be said of Philip VI, who did not fully control all of France and had an extremely difficult time finding recruits for his army because he did not have enough funds to pay them due to the economic warfare being conducted by the English.

Additionally, in order for there to be a counter to the COG, it is essential for the actors involved to consider the most critical elements for the execution of the enemy forces capabilities. The determination of enemy capabilities ensures that an actor is able to not only counter them, but do so decisively. The Crecy campaign is therefore critical on this front because it allows for an assessment of the way that the French forces were able to use their intelligence of English operations in the process of planning their counterattacks. In the Crecy campaign, Edward III made use of a similar troop formation that had won him considerable success against the Scots at Halidon Hill.[11] This formation allowed the English archers to make use of the longbow effectively in a manner that helped them knock off French knights from their horses. Furthermore, the arrows were powerful enough to pierce their armor, meaning that the French knights could be struck from multiple directions at the same time. It is essential to consider that the power, range and accuracy of the English longbow played a significant role in allowing for an English victory during the Crecy campaign. In addition, the English forces had an advantage since they were more experienced than their numerically superior counterparts to such an extent that they had greater discipline from their years of fighting in Wales and Scotland.[12] This proved to be an added advantage because it ensured that the English forces could perform better in a battle than their counterparts.

The identification of the critical requirements that pose a vulnerability to the actions of adversaries is important. It allows for a consideration of the way that adversaries are likely to respond to planned actions and provides for the development of strategy concerning how best to counter any moves by the enemy. It is because of a consideration of such strategy during the Crecy campaign that Edward III was able to ensure that he led his forces to victory against a larger force. Thus, while there is a dispute in the number of troops that participated in the battle of Crecy, the English army was considerably smaller, with Edward III probably having only fielded 12000 men against the French army of 25000 men.[13] The English therefore sought to gain the upper hand through positioning themselves on a small rise overlooking the River Maie. Furthermore, the English troops were split into three divisions while the flanks of the army were protected by marshy ground and forest, on one hand, and the village of Wadicourt on the other. Thus, the French were forced into a scenario where they not only had to narrow their lines, but also attack uphill. The English made the situation even more difficult for their French counterparts through having holes dug into the open ground at the front of their lines; greatly hampering movement.

 III.            Butler’s Godzilla COG Determination Approach

The Godzilla approach is one that shows considerable simplicity because its main purpose is to ensure that there is the determination of the strategic goal of the force that is being analyzed.[14] The major goal of Edward III during the Crecy campaign was to secure his territory in France and to ensure that he expanded as much as possible in France in order to gain the upper hand over the French king Philip VI. The result of the situation was that there was an active attempt on the part of Edward III to ensure that he reduced the number of COGs in the campaign and only worked with a minimum of them. He attained this objective by maintaining a study of the French moves and seeking to counter them as effectively as possible in order to enhance his advantage on the field. The significance of this move can be seen through the way that Edward III employed the limited resources he had to gain the upper hand over his French counterpart. He concentrated his forces in those areas that were absolutely necessary, such taking the upper ground, and forced the French to come against the English and right into a hail of arrows, which proved very devastating to the French. In this way, Edward was able to gain the advantage on the battlefield to such an extent that following the Battle of Crecy, he had gained more territory in France than he had held when he launched the campaign.

The Godzilla COG determination approach is also one that seeks to discover the objectives that have to be met in order to achieve the goals that have been set for the military campaign.[15] The main approach of the English army during the Crecy campaign was to ensure that the COG of the French forces was significantly destroyed. This was done through the destruction of a significant number of French towns and villages while at the same time capturing those that were of strategic value. This process ensured that the French lost the advantage that they had previously held fighting within their own territory. The loss of Calais, for example, was a devastating blow to the French because they essentially lost the advantage that was involved in keeping the English troops at bay since it provided the latter with the means of landing more troops and supplies as needed closer to the battlefield. Moreover, Edward made use of the strategy of waiting for the French to make their move prior to moving himself, which was significant because it allowed the English to gain the upper hand since they could see and counter the French formations; factors that were not to the advantage of the latter. The raids against French towns, furthermore, increased the advantage that the English had because there was a destabilization of the French COG.

This approach is one that also considers the critical strengths that are required to achieve the intended objectives that have been identified. The use of the longbow as well as putting experienced troops on the field ensured that the war was won on behalf of Edward III. The French, on the other hand, relied heavily on troops from a diversity of regions, who were mostly inexperienced but had instead been pressed into service. Furthermore, the tax burden on the French people because of having to support such a large number of troops meant that it was more difficult to ensure that the forces of Philip VI were effectively provisioned. The result was that it created a scenario where it was extremely difficult for the French to not only move troops, but also gain an advantage over the smaller English force. Moreover, the devastation that the English had caused in northern France during their campaign had not only demoralized the population, but also created a scenario where the collection of taxes was quite difficult since the wealth of the population that could have been taxed was either looted or destroyed by the English troops as they undertook economic warfare against the French. Thus, the French COG was greatly diminished prior to the Battle of Crecy which favoring the English.

 IV.            The Critical Factors Analysis Method

The critical factors analysis method of COG is one that seeks to identify the desired objectives of the enemy. Through this process, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the promotion of the interests of the actor involved since there is the need to ensure that the COG of the enemy is identified and destabilized.[16] During the Crecy campaign, Edward III recognized the considerable power that Philip VI had, especially as a means of countering his landings in France. Furthermore, he recognized the French capability to not only collect more taxes due to having a higher population, but also field more troops against the English. Moreover, the French forces had the advantage because they were fighting on home soil, meaning that they could essentially counter the English as soon as they moved against them. therefore, Edward III’s strategy in countering these French COGs was based on a three-pronged move; landing the troops to desired areas by sea, undertaking a campaign of terror and economic warfare against the French people and finally, making use of experienced troops on the battlefield.

By addressing each of the objectives of the French, and the way that they desired to achieve them, Edward III was willing to make sure that he countered their moves effectively; essentially destroying their COG. Because he had a much smaller force than his opponent, Edward III established his own COG through the use of a strategy aimed at choosing his own battlefield and goading the French into taking the field against the English. This was done through making sure that he made use of highly experienced troops who were commanded by superior commanders that were veterans of wars in Scotland and Wales. The king himself took over the overall command, meaning that there was a unified command, which was counter to the French, whose commanders were the nobility who brought their own retinues to battle. Furthermore, Edward III ensured that the entire command structure followed his orders by placing trusted commanders, such as his son Edward the Black Prince, at the helm, which resulted in the pursuit of common goals based on the desire to bring about the defeat of the French and the acquisition of more territory in France.

Knowledge concerning the critical strengths and weaknesses of the enemy is essential in disrupting its operations. As has been mentioned above, the manner through which Edward III conducted his campaign in France is one that was based on his knowledge of the way that the French would respond. He took extremely pragmatic decisions when it came to the organization of his troops in order to counter the French forces that came against him. Furthermore, because of his recognition of the numerical superiority of his opponents, Edward was able to capitalize on the overconfidence of the French to such an extent that he was able to win a battle despite having fewer troops at his disposal than Philip VI. The Crecy campaign was therefore designed to make sure that the strengths of the French were overcome so that they would be forced into a decisive battle against the English, where the latter had the advantage. Without a consideration of French strengths, it is unlikely that the success that the English achieved would have come about. The campaign was an opportunity by Edward III to ensure that the French were significantly weakened to such an extent that they would be at a disadvantage on the battlefield.

    V.            Conclusion

In general, the diversity of strategies employed by both the English and the French were aimed at the attainment of victory. Thus, having an understanding of the various COGs of the Crecy campaign and the manner through which the various actors responded is critical in showing the reasons the eventual English victory. There was an attempt by both sides to destroy each other’s COGs in order to gain the strategic advantage. However, the English were better able to employ their strategy in such a way that they gained competitive advantage over the French by destroying the latter’s COGs during the Crecy campaign. The English were better able to protect their COGs from French interference, which ensured that there was the creation of an environment within which they maintained an advantage over the French until their victory and the capitulation of the latter following the Battle of Crecy.

---

[1] Carl von Clausewitz, On War: The Complete Edition (New York: Brownstone, 2009), 144.

[2] Dale C Eikmeier, "A Logical Method for Center-of-Gravity Analysis," Military Review 87, no. 5 (2007): 62.

[3] Richard Barber, The Life and Campaigns of the Black Prince: From Contemporary Letters, Diaries, and Chronicles, Including Chandos Herald's Life of the Black Prince (Boydell & Brewer, 1997), 13.

[4] Clifford Rogers, "War Cruel and Sharp. English Strategy under Edward Iii, 1327," Reviews in History, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b03/47d98f9abace69d7a1b6fc1c3b15c490c268.pdf.

[5] Michael M Postan, "The Costs of the Hundred Years' War," Past & Present, no. 27 (1964): 34; Charles Chandler, "The Battle of Crecy," The Journal of Military History 69, no. 4 (2005): 1198.

[6] W Mark Ormrod, "The English Crown and the Customs, 1349-63," Economic History Review  (1987): 28.

[7] John B Henneman Jr, "Financing the Hundred Years' War: Royal Taxation in France in 1340," Speculum 42, no. 2 (1967): 275; Edmund Fryde, "Royal Fiscal Systems and State Formation in France from the 13th to the 16th Century, with Some English Comparisons," Journal of Historical Sociology 4, no. 3 (1991): 236.

[8] Paul Solon, "The Road to Crecy: The English Invasion of France, 1346," The Journal of Military History 69, no. 4 (2005): 1197.

[9] Russell Mitchell, "The Longbow-Crossbow Shootout at Crécy (1346): Has the" Rate of Fire Commonplace" Been Overrated?," in The Hundred Years War (Part Ii) (Brill, 2008), 233.

[10] Scott L Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward Iii (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 53.

[11] Albert E Prince, "The Strength of English Armies in the Reign of Edward Iii," The English Historical Review 46, no. 183 (1931): 13.

[12] Yuval Noah Harari, "Inter-Frontal Cooperation in the Fourteenth Century and Edward Iii's 1346 Campaign," War in History 6, no. 4 (1999): 380.

[13] Mark Cartwright, "Battle of Crécy," World History Encyclopedia, https://www.ancient.eu/article/1510/battle-of-crecy/#:~:text=Both%20sides%20at%20Cr%C3%A9cy%20had,weapon%20on%20the%20medieval%20battlefield.

[14] Aaron P Jackson, "Center of Gravity Analysis “Down Under”," JFQ 84 (2017): 81.

[15] John A Warden, The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat (iUniverse, 1998), 39.

[16] Daniel J Smith, Kelley Jeter, and Odin Westgaard, "Three Approaches to Center of Gravity Analysis," Joint Force Quarterly 78: 129.

To what extent has Saudi Arabia adopted a policy based on surrogate warfare in order to achieve their strategic aim in Yemen

 

The war in Yemen is one of the most devastating in the modern world and this has been mainly because of the manner through which numerous individuals in the country have ended up suffering as a result. Most of the individuals that have borne the greatest impact of the conflict have been civilians and it is pertinent to note that because of this, there has been widespread condemnation towards both sides of the conflict for the humanitarian crisis.[1] However, while the condemnation has been taking place, it is important to consider that Saudi Arabia and its allies have received the greatest fault over the conflict, without the consideration that this nation has merely been protecting its national interests against Iran and its proxies in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has conducted its war in Yemen in a manner that allows it to make sure that it not only attains a level of advantage over Iran, its main regional rival, but also ensures that it reestablishes the internationally recognized government of Yemen in power.[2] Saudi Arabia has made sure that it establishes a broad alliance of nations aimed at preventing Iran from becoming too powerful in the region to such an extent that the Yemeni war is essentially a part of a strategy at the attainment of greater stability in the Middle East. While this may be the case, it is important to note that the way that the war has been conducted in recent years has essentially made it more difficult for Saudi Arabia to attain its objectives. This is especially the case when one considers that the country has been unable to fully utilize its power to realize its targets in the country. The Houthis, who are the main Iranian proxy in Yemen, have proven to be more resilient than expected despite the fact that they do not have the same quality of weapons and training as the Saudi forces.[3]

The images of the war in Yemen and the humanitarian crisis that it has spawned are often spread by international media outlets such as CNN and the BBC.[4] These tend to condemn the role that Saudi Arabia has taken in the conflict and promote the idea that this nation is the aggressor. The major omission in this case is that Saudi involvement in Yemen was aimed at making sure that not only its national security, but also the regional security, was guaranteed. The destabilizing effects of Iranian involvement in Yemen, including a potential threat on the southern border of Saudi Arabia were not only a serious security threat to Saudi Arabia, but also to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. It was therefore essential for Saudi Arabia and its allies to get involved in the Yemeni civil war as a means of stabilizing the situation in the country as well as to prevent the overthrow of the legitimate Yemeni government. However, the approach that was taken, mainly one that seeks to completely annihilate the Houthi, and therefore Iranian presence in the Arabian Peninsula, is one that has for the most part not been successful. Instead, the Houthis, on one hand, and Saudi Arabia and its allies have ended up in a stalemate, with neither side making any advances in the conflict.[5] The latter is a sign that Saudi Arabia has to change its strategy if it is to be able to attain its objectives in Yemen. This is especially the case when one considers that Saudi strategy in Yemen has for the most part been unsuccessful in taming the Houthis and their Iranian allies. It has therefore become essential to make sure that there is the promotion of a scenario where Saudi Arabia undertakes a change of strategy aimed at the attainment of its objectives. Thus, like its rival, Saudi Arabia has to enhance its surrogate warfare in a manner that is more effective.

Surrogate warfare has proven to be one of the most effective means of attaining strategic goals in the Yemeni war. It has been employed successfully by the Iranians through the Houthis to such an extent that it has become a highly effective means of fighting against more superior foes, in this case Saudi Arabia and its allies. Surrogate warfare has shown its significance in Syria, where it has worked very well for the United States through its support for Syrian Democratic Forces, which allowed it to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).[6] The significance of this scenario should not be lost on Saudi Arabia because it has not only been highly effective in Syria, but it has allowed for the destruction of an extremely dangerous force in the region, namely ISIL. The pertinence of this strategy is that Saudi Arabia can seek to apply the same strategy in the Yemeni conflict as a means of gaining an edge over its rivals. This is especially the case when it comes to the manner through which to swiftly establish a stronger resistance to the Houthis. Iran has been able to provide the necessary support to the Houthis without incurring too much of a cost in the process and it has therefore been able to attain a high level of success when it comes to the way that it conducts its proxy war with Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Saudi Arabia should also consider employing a similar strategy. This paper makes the argument that the employment of surrogate warfare in Yemen by Saudi Arabia can be extremely effective against the Houthis as well as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, among other current and potential regional foes. The attainment of its strategic aims in Yemen should be ample motivation for Saudi Arabia to employ surrogate warfare in order to take on its rivals on a level field.

The concept of surrogate warfare is one that has become quite popular in the 21^st century. This is because the surrogate is an actor or technological tools that are made use of by the patron to absorb its operational, financial, and political burden within a conflict. The surrogate can therefore be a state or non-state actor, mercenaries, or a commercial military organization, or a terrorist or insurgent organization that is made use of by the patron to achieve specific objectives. Technology, such as robots and drones, has also come to be increasingly used for the purpose of making sure that there is the attainment of political objectives. The use of autonomous platforms such as drones has garnered considerable attention in recent years because they ensure that there is the advancement of the interests of patron states without being costly in human life as well as financially. It has therefore become essential to consider surrogate warfare as a step up from the conventional one because it gives the actor the upper hand without necessarily getting involved in risky situations.

The surrogate has become an important tool when it comes to the considerably varied forms of warfare that are developing in the modern world. This is especially the case when one considers that there is a diversity of conflict forms that have developed in recent years that have resulted in protagonists employing numerous means to achieve their goals. Thus, conflict has ended up not only being globalized, but has also become mediatized, securitized, and privatized as a means of avoiding the large numbers of casualties that are often involved in conventional forms of warfare. Most major powers in the world have ended up in conflicts that are transnational in nature, as well as being remote in due to their distance from the home countries. It has therefore become essential for these conflicts to be considered from the perspective of how best to achieve stated objectives without putting the countries involved in quagmires such as those experienced by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq from which it has not been able to withdraw completely. In this context, the surrogate is effective in helping the patron state engage in protracted conflicts across the world through the suppression of intangible threats that could potentially be a high risk to the homeland.

Surrogates have the means of making sure that there is the disruption of the battlespace at a kinetic level. This is based on the manner that they are able to challenge the willpower of opponents in conflicts while at the same time being able to provide the patron states with a level of deniability, especially when it comes to avoiding combat operations. This is a significant difference to proxy warfare because in surrogate warfare, technology plays a highly significant role to such an extent that it can be considered a surrogate in itself. Developments that have taken place in new technologies have ensured the development of technological surrogates. The case with the advancements made in artificial intelligence, neurosciences, and synthetic biology effective surrogates to such an extent that even small states have the ability to make sure that they achieve their goals on the battlefield.

The Yemen Civil War is one of the most devastating conflicts of the 21^st century. Since its beginning in 2014 following the overthrow of the Yemeni government led by Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi by the Houthi movement, it has become one of the most significant conflicts in the world because it has come to involve a diversity of both regional and international actors. The roots of the conflict come from the failure of the political transition that was initiated in 2011 following the stepping down of Ali Abdullah Saleh and handing power to Hadi, who was his deputy at the time. Hadi struggled significantly when it came to handling the diversity of problems that the country was facing, including the southern separatist movement, the continued attacks by jihadists, as well as the continued loyalty of the security personnel of the country to Saleh, the former president. The significance of these problems was greatly enhanced through the continued corruption, food insecurity, and unemployment that plagued that country despite the change in government. The prevailing situation seems to have contributed the drop in popularity of Hadi and his government and the development of a scenario where his authority was undermined. His failure to deal with the most pressing problems that Yemen faced created an environment within which the population was no longer willing to accept the status quo and was willing to follow any other political actor that promised change. This was the reason behind the population essentially supporting the Houthi movement in the capital Sana’a and the ouster of Hadi and his government from power.

The involvement of international actors in Yemen began soon after the overthrow of the Hadi government by the Houthis in conjunction with the security forces that were loyal to Saleh. Saleh seems to have backed the Houthis as a means of making sure that he regained power, with the result being that Hadi and his government were forced to flee the country. The rise of a group that is predominantly Shia in affiliation alarmed the regional Sunni powers led by Saudi Arabia, with the result being that they moved to ensure that potential Iranian influence on the Arabian Peninsula was prevented. The military intervention of some of the Gulf Cooperation Council nations, specifically Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, in addition to six other predominantly Sunni Arab states, was aimed at making sure that there was the overthrow of the Houthi and the reestablishment of the Hadi government over Yemen. This was considered a proxy war based on the assumption that Iran was actively supporting the Houthis through the supply of arms and logistical support in a bid to ensure that there was a direct challenge against its biggest rival in the region, Saudi Arabia. Thus, bringing an end to Iranian influence in the region was a significant goal that was aimed at in order to make sure that there was the promotion of a scenario where the status quo would be changed in favor of the Arab states. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, the Saudi-led coalition received intelligence and logistical support from the United Kingdom, France, and the United States while conducting their air campaign, and later, when they launched a ground offensive.

At the beginning of the war, Saudi officials made a forecast that it would only last for a few weeks before the Houthis were brought to heel. The military objectives of the Saudi coalition were to ensure that the Houthis, and therefore Iranian influence, was removed from the Arabian Peninsula, and that the Hadi government, which was considered to be the most malleable, was returned to power. Thus, following an initial air campaign that began in March 2015, the coalition landed ground troops in the southern city of Aden and undertook the advance that resulted in driving out of the Houthis and their allies from much of the southern part of Yemen over the following months. It is pertinent to consider that despite the initial success in pushing out the Houthis from some part of Yemen, the heartland of the country remains firmly in their grip. This has been the case since the beginning of the coalition war against the Houthis in 2015 and it has come to be considered to be one of the most disastrous campaigns in the modern world because of the civilian casualties that have resulted from the Saudi-led airstrikes. Furthermore, it is important to note that despite the presence of coalition ground forces in addition to their superior arms, the Houthis have managed to hold their own to such an extent that rather than being weakened, they have actually become more deeply entrenched in the areas under their control to such an extent that the international community has come to recognize that peace in Yemen cannot be achieved without them.

While the Hadi government, with coalition support, was able to return to Yemen and establish itself in the city of Aden, it struggled to ensure that it was able to provide security and other services to the Yemeni people in the territory that it controlled. Furthermore, despite the government’s return, Hadi has continued to be based in Saudi Arabia, which has resulted in a scenario where it is quite difficult for him to promote a more positive image of himself among the people of his country. It is also noteworthy that despite its best efforts, which have included both a ground and air offensive, the Saudi-led coalition has failed to make sure that the Houthis are dislodged from Sana’a, the capital city of Yemen. Instead, the Houthis seem to be gaining strength, as seen through the way that they have over the years increased their capabilities on the battlefield and managed to inflict significant losses on the coalition forces. The Houthis have further maintained their siege on the third city of Taiz, which is significant because its capture would have a demoralizing effect on the coalition forces and their allies on the ground since it would mean that the Hadi government would no longer have control over the country’s heartland. Moreover, the Houthis have enhanced their capabilities in the development in ballistic missiles and drones, which they have put into use in launching attacks into Saudi Arabia. It has resulted in an environment of considerable uncertainty amid accusations that Iran has been responsible for the transfer of advanced military technology to the Houthis. The launching of missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia to counter its air and ground campaign has made the latter vulnerable in a way that it was not prior to its involvement in Yemen.

The latter was seen in the highly sophisticated air attacks that were conducted against the Saudi oilfields of Khurais and Abqaiq in the eastern part of the country in September 2019. The result was the disruption of half of the oil production of Saudi Arabia, which is significant because it represented a high percentage of the global oil output. This Houthi attack is important because it shows the way that this groups has essentially enhanced its capabilities to such an extent that it is launching missile and drone attacks into Saudi Arabia. The potential for an escalation of such attacks should not be underestimated because the evidence so far has shown that the Houthis are improving their missile capabiltiies to such an extent that their attacks could go further into Saudi Arabia than they have so far. Despite the Houthis claiming responsibility for the attacks on the Saudi oil capabilities, it is noteworthy that the Saudis, as well as their American allies, accused Iran of being behind them. This is despite the evidence pointing to the Houthis since a direct Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia would essentially have been a declaration of war. However, it also shows the considerable regional tensions that have developed as a result of the Yemeni war because it is increasingly being seen as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is noteworthy that the chaos that has come about because of the war has created an environment where Al Qaeda and Daesh can thrive. Militants from Daesh as well as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have taken advantage of the situation to seize territory in the country’s south and carry out attacks on a diversity of places, especially in Aden.

The Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni Civil War is one that has come with a lot of risk for the kingdom. This is especially the case when one considers that Saudi Arabia has, as seen above, become a target for the Houthis, who have been bearing the brunt of the Saudi aerial attacks since 2015. In retaliation, the Houthis launched a ballistic missile with the aim of hitting Riyadh in November 2017. The latter resulted in a move by the coalition to ensure that the blockade on Yemen was tightened in order to prevent Iran from increasing its assistance to the Houthis through the smuggling of weapons. Iran has consistently denied the accusations that it is the one sponsoring and supplying the Houthis, but while this may be the case; its claims have tended to be ignored by the Saudis and their allies. The result of this situation is that the blockade led to a significant increase in the prices of fuel and food to such an extent that it led to the people of Yemen being pushed into food and health insecurities since they found themselves in a scenario where they were unable to obtain even the most basic of needs. This insecurity has created an environment where it has become morally inconsiderate for the coalition to continue its participation in the Yemeni conflict since it involves putting a large part of the population at risk. However, despite the humanitarian situation in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and its allies steadfastly continued their attacks and blockade of Yemen in a bid to invalidate Houthi power.

---

[1] Delinda C Hanley, "Ending the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen," The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 37, no. 4 (2018): 63.

[2] Ginny Hill, Yemen Endures: Civil War, Saudi Adventurism and the Future of Arabia (Oxford University Press, 2017), 255.

[3] May Darwich, "The Saudi Intervention in Yemen: Struggling for Status," Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (2018): 129.

[4] M Martens, "What Kind of War Is This? Exploring the Case for a Post-Post-Proxy War Definition" (2017), 4.

[5] Peter Salisbury, "Yemen and the Saudi–Iranian ‘Cold War’," Research Paper, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs 11 (2015): 2.

[6] Habibullo Yakubovich Azimov, "The Emergence of the Syrian Crisis and the Impact of the External Forces on It," Bulletin Social-Economic and Humanitarian Research, no. 4 (2019): 92.

An increase in trade leads to peace

 

Globalization is one of the most significant aspects of the global economy and over the last century, has been able to bring a diversity of countries together. Developing countries and emerging markets have continued to integrate into the global trade network to such an extent that they have become an integral part of the way that nations interact with one another on a global scale.[1] World trade has increase rapidly since the middle of the 20^th century, and this is to such an extent that numerous countries have been brought together as a means of not only profiting from it, but also creating an environment that it predictable in order not to disrupt trade. There is a tradition among scholars, specifically in the social sciences, to attempt to understand the political, social, and economic consequences of globalization.[2] It is a topic that has been hotly debated over the decades to such an extent that it has come to involve both the general public as well as academia. This debate is one that considers the impact that globalization has had on income inequality, national identity, and economic growth, among other issues. The significance of this debate is based on the manner that globalization, and global trade, has come to change the lives of individuals across the world. This paper focuses on the way that trade integration plays a pivotal role in international relations, especially when one considers the way that it influences interstate conflict.

Military conflict can be extremely disruptive to trade and in the long term can end up impeding economic growth. This is especially the case when one considers the impact that conflict tends to have on international trade.[3] Conflict between countries has a tendency to reduce international trade because most of the resources of the nations in conflict will be diverted to the war effort rather than regular trade. A consequence of this situation is that there is significant damage to the economic welfare of not only the nations involved in the conflict, but other nations within the international system. It therefore becomes essential to consider that trade and conflict take on opposite roles because while trade ensures that there is a level of prosperity for the parties involved in it, conflict, on the other hand, creates an environment within which it becomes quite difficult for economic growth to take place. Instead, there is a scenario where the nations involved end up seeking to cripple one another at a military and economic level to such an extent that rather than having peace between them, there is a level of animosity which prevents them from undertaking joint economic activities. Therefore, trade at the international level seems to have some impact on conflict because it allows for the avoidance of conflict in order to ensure that there is the maintenance of economic ties that are deemed more beneficial.

One of the most important beliefs concerning trade is that an increase in international trade has the potential of reducing military conflict between nations. This is especially considering that most of the countries likely to get involved in conflict will have developed bilateral trade interdependence.[4] However, in a situation where there is the establishment of a level of control over the bilateral trade relations between nations, it becomes more difficult to determine whether or not they are likely to get involved in bilateral conflict. It becomes necessary to consider that global trade openness has to be done in a manner that is in the interests of all parties involved to such an extent that they are not willing to disrupt the status quo through conflict. Instead, trade openness has the potential of making sure that there is a level of trust between the parties involved since they do not seek to take advantage of one another but are rather in a bilateral relationship that is mutually beneficial. The importance of this scenario can be seen through the finding that trade openness has an impact that can be viewed negatively in respect to military conflict because the latter will often take place between nations that do not have a mutually beneficial trade relationship. However, if the relationship is beneficial, it becomes essential for them to maintain their economic interdependence because to do otherwise would mean significant losses.

The potential of an increase in trade costs due to bilateral conflicts leads to the avoidance of such conflicts. Trade costs that come about because of bilateral conflicts not only affect bilateral trade, but also multilateral trade. Thus, nations that are more dependent on the global economy are less inclined to become involved in war because to do so could potentially result in disruptions to their economies.[5] In this way, states that are economically open to others are more peaceful because they will often seek to avoid conflict through international institutions as well as the use of international law. In the process, these nations will also seek to apply good governance in such a way that provides them with a bureaucracy that is focused more on seeking to maintain trade openness while at the same time safeguarding the security interests of the nation involved through the enforcement of international law. These circumstances make is less likely for military actions to be taken; the latter being applied only as a last resort. However, there are instances where because of multilateral trade, there is a reduction in bilateral dependence, meaning that the potential of military conflict is increased because the nation involved could potentially trade with others even after disrupting its relationship with another due to military conflict. Therefore, an increase in trade can be seen as a double-edged sword because while on one hand, it promotes peace, on the other, it ends up creating an environment within which there is a lowering of the opportunity cost of getting involved in military conflict.

An increase in trade interdependence at a bilateral level in addition to global trade openness ensures that there is a reduction of the probability of military conflict. In this way, trade is a critical factor when it comes to the promotion of peace between states because there is a reduction of military conflict between trade partners.[6] Instead, other avenues for the resolution of conflicts between them are used to such an extent that there is little incentive to get into war. Additionally, bilateral trade interdependence between states has the potential of ensuring that they have open avenues of communication that they can exploit for the purposes of bringing about peace-promotion between them. Trade is therefore essential for peace promotion, especially among neighboring countries because of its ability to bring together individuals from these countries who share mutual interests. In this way, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of shared economic interests between states to such an extent that the incentive for them to get into open conflict is minimized. Thus, while bilateral trade plays an important role in promoting peace between neighboring countries, greater global trade ensures that there is peace between distant countries with trade connections. Trade, in general, ensures that there is the attainment of peace at both the regional and international levels; creating an environment of trust and openness that prevents war as a first option to the resolution of conflict.

Trade integration has a significant effect on conflict between nations. Thus, while bilateral trade has the potential of creating an environment within which conflict is avoided, the same cannot be said of multilateral trade because an increase in such trade will often lead to a situation where countries could get into military conflict. The case of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 is important because it shows the manner through which the advent of multilateral trade created an environment within which a stronger power sought to take advantage of a weaker one in order to gain access to its resources.[7] However, despite the latter finding, it is important to consider that trade in general is a force for peace since it provides an avenue through which different states are able to work together to not only facilitate, but also expand it to their advantage. It further ensures that there is the creation of an environment within which shared economic interests are made use of as a means of attaining integration, as seen in the case of the EU, which was established on the basis of trade, and common values of its members. Increasing trade ensures that there is the establishment of bilateral and multilateral relationships that play an important role in bringing about greater global stability and peace since the parties involved are often not interested in disrupting trade.

An increase in trade, which has resulted in globalization, has created numerous avenues through which to promote peace. An example of such an avenue is through the way that bilateral trade interdependence has become one of the most significant aspects of the modern world.[8] This interdependence is an advantage because it allows for the promotion of peace between a diversity of nations. Trade ensures that there is the establishment of strong relationships between nations in such a way that there is greater cultural and political understanding at a level that would have otherwise not have been achieved without trade. Furthermore, neighboring countries that have a strong trade relationship are unlikely to get into conflict because of their mutual interest in maintaining their economic integration. The interconnectedness of nations through trade ensures that they are able to enhance their cooperation to such an extent that they are more willing to work together in the resolution of issues between them rather than resorting to hostilities, which end up being seen as unnecessary due to their potential to disrupt trade. However, it is noteworthy that while bilateral trade will promote peace between neighboring countries in an effective manner, the same cannot be said of distant countries. Instead, distant countries are more likely to enhance peace between them through participation in global trade, which involves greater trade openness.

The findings of the analysis above suggest that trade integration not only bring about economic, but political gains as well. This is to such an extent that trading partners will most often end up becoming political partners as well as they seek to make sure that they create avenues through which to enhance their economic cooperation. Economic cooperation inevitably leads to a level of political cooperation which plays a significant role in international politics, especially when one considers that there is less likelihood of conflict between these states because of the diversity of avenues open for their cooperation. Economic integration at both a regional and global level will often be initiated as a means of attaining both security and political goals. Under such circumstances, the economy becomes a security issue which is protected through the encouragement of cooperation between trading partners. An example of such a project, as seen above, is that of the EU, which was formed following the end of the Second World War with the aim of not only securing the European economy, but also prevent conflicts on such a large scale from happening again. It is therefore essential to ensure that there is the promotion of a greater understanding of the connection between an increase in trade and peace in future research.

---

[1] Jong‐Wha Lee and Ju Hyun Pyun, "Does Trade Integration Contribute to Peace?," Review of Development Economics 20, no. 1 (2016): 327.

[2] Lang Ping, "How Trade Promotes Peace: A Case Study of Sino-Us Relations [J]," World Economics and Politics 11 (2006): 1; Charles H Anderton and John R Carter, "The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Times-Series Study," Journal of Peace Research 38, no. 4 (2001): 445; Katherine Barbieri and Gerald Schneider, "Globalization and Peace: Assessing New Directions in the Study of Trade and Conflict," ibid.36 (1999): 388.

[3] Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, and Mathias Thoenig, "Make Trade Not War?," The Review of Economic Studies 75, no. 3 (2008): 865; Charles H Anderton et al., Globalization and Armed Conflict (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), 31.

[4] Dale C Copeland, "Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations," International security 20, no. 4 (1996): 5.

[5] Massimo Morelli and Tommaso Sonno, "On Economic Interdependence and War," Journal of Economic Literature 55, no. 3 (2017): 1085.

[6] Johann Park, "Economic Interdependence, Polity Type, Conflict and Peace: When Does Interdependence Cause Peace and Cause War?," Journal of International and Area Studies 25, no. 1 (2018): 21.

[7] Gearóid Ó Tuathail, "“Just out Looking for a Fight”: American Affect and the Invasion of Iraq," Antipode 35, no. 5 (2003): 856.

[8] Saul B Cohen, "Global Geopolitical Change in the Post-Cold War Era," Global Geopolitical Change  (1991): 551; Rafael Reuveny and Heejoon Kang, "Bilateral Trade and Political Conflict/Cooperation: Do Goods Matter?," Journal of Peace Research 35, no. 5 (1998): 581.