The United States and China's Foreign Policy in Africa

What role should the United States play in Africa? This question was recently raised in the popular press because President Obama was visiting Africa. While that is an important question, the real question should be whether the United States should continue to allow China to play an ever more important role in Africa without it? That question is paramount because it also raises other issues. As Martin Jacques pointed out in When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Press, 2012, "China's impact on Africa has so far been overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, it is worth asking the question as to where Africa would be without Chinese involvement: the continent had attracted little interest from the West since the mid-1970s and what aid it did receive was subject to the highly politicized conditions of the Washington Consensus. With the West having little to offer and the Soviet Union having disappeared, China stepped into what was in many respects a vacuum. Its positive impact has been felt in various ways." (425)

So if Jacque is correct about China's positive impact, what should the United States do to either help or hinder the process? 

The problem is that unlike China, the United States has no long term foreign affairs strategy for any issue, including China and Africa. Instead, the United States State Department simply puts out fires as best it can and the Intelligence Community is tasked with providing near real time analysis of current affairs instead of determining long range probability or historical awareness. 

The State Department policy seems to be that as long as peaceful talks continue, then no war will break out. As far as the State Department is concerned, that is a good thing because in most cases as long as everyone is talking, the status quo remains. Unfortunately, as we all know today, the status quo often means some very bad people remain in charge of countries until a popular uprising take place. Then the United States is seen as the bad guy because we helped maintain bad regimes at the expense of personal liberty within those countries. With or without our help, the lack of a long term United States foreign policy is producing headaches for the American people. Therefore, without a central long term United States policy in place to curtail China's ambitions in Africa anything done may actually make things worse for America. So what may eventually happen?

There seems to be two schools of thought on the issue. On the one hand, Jacques thinks that,". . . China's impact on the world will be as great as that of the United States over the last century, probably far greater, and certainly very different."(20) On the other hand, John Ikenberry believes current international policies and ways of doing things may eventually absorb the Chinese attacks in much the same way that the Irish absorbed every invader in the last several hundred years. 

Either way, what is certain is that the main difference between the United States and China remains that the Chinese tend to plan for the long term, producing a multifaceted plan of peaceful and sometimes not so peaceful forms of world domination. By engaging in political arenas not currently dominated by the West the Chinese are hoping to export their own brand of politics and life before the West has a chance to fill the void. For the Chinese, it seems to be working. For the Americans, there seems to be no realistic way of stopping them. Therefore, if Jacques is correct, sometime in the next several hundred years, the Chinese way of doing things will be the new standard.

So the question remains, what if anything should the United States do to counter the Chinese in Africa? Nothing for now, at least not until the United States leaders develop a reasonable very long term plan to counter perceived Chinese aggression. Unfortunately, with our current government administration, that is unlikely to happen.

The Case For U.S. Drone Strikes Against Americans

The Case For U.S. Drone Strikes Against Americans

The best Science Fiction writing provides a way to comment on contemporary issues without preaching. Examples of this style of writing can be found in Arthur C. Clark’s fiction works and essays, including the essay, “Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination,” in Profiles of the Future (1962). Most recently, J.J. Abrahms attempted to comment on the modern day question of whether drone strikes are legal, moral, or necessary. 

Danya Greenfield, deputy director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council recently wrote, (“Obama’s drone speech misses the mark,” June 4, 2013, Foreign Policy magazine) that the president’s speech language paved the way for, “ . . . even more expansive use of unmanned aircraft strikes in the future due to the omission of previous White House claims that drones target only the most senior 

al Qaeda leaders.” 

At least one reader agreed and stated, “When a President infringes on the rights of Americans, has the ability to order the deaths of American Citizens without a trial. [sic] He has over stepped [sic] his bounds and has nullified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Impeachment and a whole overhaul of the Government is in order.” 

Unfortunately, each of the previous arguments is based on a flawed understandings. For example, in the Star Trek movie, Spock argues against using a future version of drones to strike and kill a terrorist who took refuge on a planet where the Federation had no jurisdiction. As President Obama states in his May 23, 2013 speech, “I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out,” Kirk is ordered by the head of Star Fleet to use similar methods to kill Khan, the terrorist. The difference of course is that the fictional head of Star Fleet is probably not the head of the Federation of Planets, and therefore probably has no real authority to authorized such a mission to kill a civilian member of the Federation of Planets without some sort of trial or court authorization. Therefore, the order was not a legal order and Kirk should not have agreed to do so. This is not the place to argue why Star Trek Into The Darkness is such bad science fiction, but it is a good place to start to argue why America needs to keep drone strikes as a viable option on the war of terror. 

Dany Greenfield’s argument is more compelling, but again fails to convince. For example Greenfield refers to President Obama’s May 23 speech and says, “That may be the policy on paper, but it does not always play out in reality.” Greenfield then used examples from Yemen to show how the Obama administration frequently allows foreign nationals to dictate who gets killed by drone strikes. In this case, Greenfield uses a Yemeni activist who testified before our Congress about the use of a drone to kill Hammed al-Radmi in his village. A man the activist claimed was known throughout the village, who could have been arrested because “everyone knew exactly who he was, where he lived, and with whom he was affiliated. He was not hiding in a secure location; in fact, he was engaged regularly with local officials.” 

If true, then that also means the local people and officials must have not only have been allowing al-Radmi to live unopposed in the village, but by their very inaction, been helping him and his group oppose the government. If that is also true, then any U.S. mission, or Yemeni mission sent into the area to get al-Radmi would have likely found themselves in grave danger from either troops loyal to al-Radmi or from villagers protecting al-Radmi. At the very least, the people in the area would have warned al-Radmi, if given the chance. Furthermore, from Rarea al-Muslimi’s own testimony (the Yemeni who testified before Congress), it is clear local officials were complacent and helpful to al-Radmi. Last, this testimony before congress concerned a non-U.S. citizen and therefore did not belong in the article questioning whether drone strikes against U.S. citizens was justified. Even so, Greenfield is correct in the article when suggesting drone issues are causing blowback. Two people responded in agreement to Greenfield’s article, one suggested (BillBedsoe2014) Obama’s speech went far enough to get him impeached, and the other (dbstetson27) stated the President had nullified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

When it comes to using drones against Americans who sought refuge in foreign lands who are either declared or undeclared enemies of the United States of America, these arguments and responses rightfully bring up questions regarding Due Process and the Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial. The questions will ultimately be decided by the Judicial  branch of the Federal Government. However, President Obama stated in his May 23, 2013 speech that every strike he authorized against American citizens who declared open hostilities against America and was first discussed and okayed in the Congress. In other words, although the President signed the order for the execution of that America overseas, that American was first given a trial of sorts behind Congressional closed doors by representatives chosen by that person’s peers. Furthermore, President Obama stated in his speech, but disregarded by Greenfield, that the President wanted Congress to authorize a formal secret court, similar to the FISA courts now used to authorize Federal Government Agencies to use extreme surveillance techniques in the interest of National Security, to authorize drone strikes against Americans. In this way, all three parts of the Federal Government will have oversight on drone killings. Therefore, it would take some political pressure off the President. 

It is important at this point to note: Although President Obama increased the numbers of drone strikes, he did not begin the Drone Strike Program. He inherited it from President Bush. President Obama also inherited the Intelligence Community mantra, “If it is legal, it is moral.” Therefore, as long as using drones to kill Americans who openly wage war on the United States is legal, it will most likely remain an option the President and military advisors will use. 

Furthermore, what difference does it make if the I.C. or military uses a drone, rocket, knife, bullet, or piano wire to kill an American who had every intention to harm America from within? Put another way, If that person came into your house with the intention of killing your family and children, would you try to kill him? For most people that would be a very easy answer, “Yes, if I could stop him I would stop him using whatever means I had at the time.” 

But what if I put the question this way: If a person who planned to kill your family was being protected by the government. If you did nothing, that person will kill your family. Now what do you do? If you go to the government where that person is living, planning, and getting ready to kill your family, the government will alert that person that he is being targeted. What doest that person do? He moves his operations and continues his actions until your family is dead. So what is your recourse? If that person is a credible threat and there is no way to stop him short of killing him, you kill him before he kills you or your family. Just as President Obama stated in the May 23, 2013 speech, “I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out,” you would be derelict in your own duty to allow your family to be killed or injured when you could have taken out beforehand. 

Obviously, the government must be allowed to protect its citizens against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, the Constitution protects individuals against the government. The problem for most people is that drone strikes against American citizens seem to violate the President’s obligation to protect the Constitution because it in turn protects rights of individuals from government action arising without due process. Therefore, the government may never use illegal means to protect itself while simultaneously violating the rights of individual citizens. 

The First Amendment protects individual rights to free speech. However, the First Amendment is not without its limits. Entire books have been written on the subject and will not be rehashed here. Regardless, it is not legal to yell fire in a crowded theatre with the intention to cause panic and harm and possible death to others. It is not legal to threaten the President or to intentionally tell others how to do so. History is full of such incidents and how those results changed law as we know it today. I submit, the drone strike policy, as proposed by President Obama will play out in similar fashion in the courts if we allow it. However, until the laws change, there is nothing to stop the President from ordering drone strikes on his own, and without further consent from the Congress. In fact, President Obama has followed Section 3 of the Constitution by following the “Recommendation Clause” by recommending to Congress’s consideration drone strikes, which he deemed as “necessary and expedient.” 

Currently, there are no laws stating the government cannot target American terrorist overseas. Until those laws are written or changed, provisions within the Constitution state the President must defend the Constitution. The Intelligence Community (I.C.) operates with the mantra, “If it is legal, it is moral.” The I.C.’s first role is to make sure the President is not surprised. Its second role is to provide information needed for policy makers to do their job. The third role of the I.C. is to provide answers for problems not addressed elsewhere. Today, the problem is whether to kill Americans wishing to harm Americans when it is too difficult, dangerous, or impossible to wait for events to change. 

 America needs to improve oversight, and that is what the President has proposed. It is now up to the Congress to do so. Do not blame the President for doing his job. After all, “If it is legal . . .” Then he is doing the right thing by protecting Americans using the best options available while putting the least number of Americans at risk, even if there is potential blowback in the liberal media. 

For the complete text of Dany Greenfield’s article, "Obama's drone speech misses the mark," see

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/04/obama_s_drone_speech_misses_the_mark

For President Obama's May 23, 2013 speech, go to Whitehouse.gov. 

"Star Trek Into the Darkness" is owned by Paramount, and playing in theaters at the time of this writing. 

Sir Arthur C. Clark's work is numerous and readily available everywhere.