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.

British Espionage In The United States

Summary

Covert Action against the United States is not new. From before the very beginning of this nation, foreign agents sought ways to gain advantages over the fledgling nation. The following examples of espionage took place in the earliest days of the United States by foreign agents.

In the first case, John Jay was at the eye of the storm. British, French, and the Spanish, all used espionage and covert action to influence all Americans but John Jay in particular. Foreign nationals understood John Jay’s influence transcended his native New York and sought ways to influence him. In most cases, instead of trying to influence Jay directly, foreign agents found it better and easier to use people around Jay as unwitting pawns. The following illustrates how John Jay’s actions changed as a result of their deeds, and how those activities seriously jeopardized the national security of the United States. 

In the second case, the British sought to discredit Secretary of State Randolph because he was in direct opposition to John Jay’s treaty with Great Britain. As George Washington wavered between ratifying the treaty or not, the British took covert action, and as a consequence, ruined the career of a truly honest and good man. 

In both cases, foreign agents of influence changed America’s course. In the first case, it severely weakened John Jay’s ability to bargain from a position of influence. In the second, it ruined a man’s political and private life and set American on a course of war with France.

The Jay Treaty

The British originally no reason to change or augment the 1783 Peace Treaty. Once the United States, under the Articles of Confederation, failed to comply with the treaty agreements, the British felt they held the high ground not upholding their own end of the bargain. However, while the Congress tried in good faith to uphold the peace treaty, the British did not, and simply used the Articles’ shortcomings as an excuse not to abide by the agreement. 

All that changed with the creation of the new constitutional government. Now, for the first time, the central government could enforce treaty obligations. Furthermore, outside influences from Europe encouraged the United States to join them in an “armed neutrality league.” The British were alarmed that the new league, in conjunction with French and Spanish forces on land and sea, might be enough to destroy their own superiority at sea. Therefore, they agreed to meet with the Americans to resolve the 1783 treaty issues. 

President George Washington and Secretary of State Randolph first considered sending Alexander Hamilton to negotiate the new treaty, but Hamilton noted his Federalist influences meant Republicans would not accept anything he came back with. So instead, Hamilton recommended sending John Jay in his place. Currently presiding as Chief Justice of the United States, Jay had plenty of experience, was not completely disliked by the Republicans, and was extremely sensitive to the mission’s importance of settling a dispute that might otherwise lead to war between the United States and Great Britain. "On May 12, a thousand New Yorkers cheered from the docks as Jay sailed to England, hoping to avert war." Republicans doubted Jays mission. “Madison had a nagging intuition that Jay would surrender too much to England and rupture Franco-American relations." Jay understood the treaty could ignite a firestorm and warned Hamilton, “We must not make a delusive settlement that would disunite our people and leave seeds of discord to germinate.” (485)

September 30,1794 Jay held the high ground on September 30, 1794, "in a draft submitted by him on that date." (136) Bemis, who wrote the monograph on Jay, found that draft in the London National Archives, but nowhere else. (136) That draft indicates, "A stupendous retreat by the American plenipotentiary," and, "It would have been a most embarrassing document for the Federalists, or for Jay individually, to have had submitted to the Senate. It is doubtful whether any person outside of the Foreign Office, except Jay, ever saw the document." (136) According to Bemis, the final draft, read side by side with the September 30 draft, leaves no doubt of the retreat. (136)

So why did Jay retreat from the high ground? Someone leaked a private letter from Secretary of State, Randolph to John Jay in the Aurora stating Randolph believed in the "immense value" of harmony between GB and the USA. Randolph claimed the treaty needed to be worked out to "prevent war and to preserve perfect neutrality." The news article "severely attacked Jay," and sensationally claimed Jay’s instructions were to agree to anything to prevent war, including selling the United States back to Great Britain if necessary.  (133)

September 13,1794, The first full account of the progress of negotiations is contained Jay’s letter to Randolph. (133) This letter contained drafts of a proposed treaty by Grenville and by Jay. 

September 20,1794, Hammond writing to Grenville stated Hamilton confidentially told Hammond, "with great seriousness and with every demonstration of sincerity . . . that . . . it was the settled policy of this Government in every contingency, even in that of an open contest with Great Britain, to avoid entangling itself with European connexions which could only tend to involve this country in dispute wherein it might have no possible interest, and commit it in a common cause with the allies, from whom, in the moment of danger, it could derive no succor." (Note: Succor is defined as assistance and support in times of hardship and distress) (137-138)

Thus assured that there was no longer any danger that America would join the Baltic powers in an armed neutrality league, Grenville had no difficulty in defeating Jay's proposals. “Jay, anxious to have some kind of treaty which to prevent war, retreated, and, as stated, signed the so-called Jay Treaty." (138)

November 12,1794, Randolph answered Jay’s letter about the Grenville draft. Unfortunately, the instructions did not arrive before Jay signed the Treaty.

November 19,1794, "On the day the treaty was signed [Jay] wrote to Ellsworth, Washington, Hamilton, King and Pinckney that the treaty was concluded and he thought we had reason to be satisfied; no further concessions could be obtained; if this treaty failed he despaired of another." (138) Therefore, “Jay, anxious to have some kind of treaty which to prevent war, retreated, and, as stated, signed the so-called Jay Treaty." (138)

(NOTE: This may explain why G. Washington later signed the document - Washington understood that if the Jay Treaty was not ratified, war could result. Furthermore, since the US was no longer willing to join the Baltic neutrality league, the US would be on its own against GB. France had already refused to allow the US envoy, Pinckney into France as the United States ambassador and had effectively closed relations with the United States.

December 15,1794, Randolph makes detailed criticisms of Grenville's proposals,"based on scanty information supplied earlier from Jay. (133) 

February 15,1794, Monroe to Randolph February 15, 1795, complaining the French had heard a treaty with GB had been signed in secrecy, that Jay had retreated from the US position, and that Jay refused to tell Monroe about the treaty or what had happened in London. (139)

May 30,1795 , Randolph to Monroe in France: Once the treaty finally arrived, Randolph wrote on May 30,1795 to Monroe that neither he nor Washington approved the Jay Treaty and asked Jay to explain parts of the treaty. (140) 

June 1,1795, Jay’s reply did not place the treaty in a better light. (Anderson 140) 

July 1,1795, The full text of the Jay Treaty was leaked by a Republican Senator. Madison claimed the effect was “like an electric velocity: imparted to every part of the union.” (487)

July 3,1795, Washington sent the Jay Treaty to Hamilton to evaluate.

The treaty's deficiencies were exaggerated in the partisan discussions of the time. It did prevent war for a period; granted East Indian trade; secured western ports; but secured no compensation for Negroes carried off after the Revolution; gave up the contention that free ships make free goods; ignored impressments, and left the subject of contraband unresolved. (141 - 142) The unresolved question of contraband meant the British continued to stop, search, and seize US ships heading to France." (142)

June 27,1795, Randolph wrote Washington stating the French Ambassador, Fauchet, asked that any US-B treaty be withheld from ratification until after Adet, the new French Ambassador arrived in Philadelphia.

June 29,1795, Washington refused to wait and instead, on June 29, submitted the Jay Treaty draft to the Senate, with Randolph's concerns about it. By doing so, the Senate discussed the treaty as it was written, complete with the noted problems. (142)

From this point, the Jay Treaty and the Randolph Case overlap and the best way to talk about one is to include the other:

June 30, 1795, The former French Minister, Fauchet, told Randolph that Jay's mission weakened the political bonds between France and the US. (143)  The new French Minister, Adet, agreed and explained in a letter, dated 30 June 1795, given to Randolph, that the Jay Treaty violated the US Treaty already in force in France because it included a list of contraband, articles formerly excluded in the treaty with France. The Jay Treaty also outlawed the arming of foreign ships in American Ports, something the French had been allowed by their treaty. After meeting with Adet, Randolph then wrote to Washington recommending the Jay Treaty not be ratified until after the provision listing contraband, that the French needed and wanted, be removed. (144)

July 2, 1795, Randolph wrote to all the minsters abroad warning them that he recommended the Jay Treaty not be ratified, and that it was unlikely Washington would sign the Jay Treaty until it returned from England with the article, and the British order for the seizing of provisions going to France removed. (148)

July 14,1795, Randolph to Monroe (in France): "The late British order for seizing provisions is a weighty obstacle to a ratification. I do not suppose that such an attempt to starve France will be countenanced." (147-148) (Countenanced: verb: admit as acceptable or possible). 

July 22,1795, Washington formally asked the Cabinet to submit their opinions about the Jay Treaty. Randolph wrote the Treaty should be ratified, but with the article concerning contraband omitted. (146)

July 24,1795, Washington, now at Mount Vernon gave permission for Randolph to write Hammond, the British minister, explaining Washington's position, that he "preferred to ratify the treaty rather than keep alive the seeds of discord," but that the British royal authority to seize US ship cargo on the way to France kept Washington from doing so. This was meant to help elevate the internal pressures of the treaty. However, for Randolph, the letter backfired. (146 -147).

July, 1794, Randolph’s response to The Whiskey Rebellion led the British to understand that G. Washington valued Randolph's opinion. (Randolph saw the rebellion as a danger because Hamilton wanted to use the rebellion as an excuse to raise a powerful standing army. Because Washington ultimately agreed with Randolph’s views, "Randolph represented the party of peace and the sending of commissioners was due to his influence over the mind of the President." (150)

July 26,1795, Mr. Hammond revealed a letter to Hamilton's successor, Oliver Wolcott, at a dinner to which he had invited the new Secretary of the Treasury. When questioned about how the letter came into the British hands, Hammond claimed the British Man of War Cerberus, captured the French corvette, Jean Bart, supposedly carrying this dispatch. A French officer had thrown the packet of papers overboard to keep it from falling into British hands. The packet, once retrieved, was sent to Lord Grenville, who then sent it to the British Minister, Mr. Hammond. (150-151)

July 27,1795: Hammond wrote to London. The Americans now had the intercepted letters. Hammond promised to make such use of them as would "be productive of the most beneficial effects to the general interests of His Majesty's service." (151) "The originals of the French letters are particularly interesting, and will, I am persuaded, if properly treated, tend to effect an essential change in the public sentiment of this country with regard to the character and principles of certain individuals, and to the real motives of their political conduct." (152)

July 28,1795, Hammond gave a copy of the "original letter" to Timothy Pickering, the Secretary of War. 

July 29,1795, Hammond and Pickering visit the Attorney-General, who then agreed that President Washington should be informed. Washington was then asked to return at once to the Capital.  

July 31,1795, Pickering letter to Washington said in part, "I confess I feel extreme solicitude, and, for special reason, which can be communicated to you only in person. . ." (149) It was enough to get Washington return to Philadelphia from Mount Vernon. He arrived on August 11. 

For the following week, George Washington tried to decide what to do. Finally, on August 19,1795, he called Randolph into his office. According to witnesses, Randolph read the statement and became enraged and indignant. He had no idea that the covert action had taken place and his immediate response was to leave George Washington. Randolph went to his office with a copy of the damming letter against him. That night, he formally resigned as Secretary of State.

On August 20,1795, Washington had no choice, and formally accepted Randolph’s resignation. The October 31, 1794 fabricated letter was just too powerful to overlook. From the time of his resignation Randolph's conduct was that of a desperate man, determined on one point only, his vindication. Randolph chased down Fauchet at Newport on his way home to France, and obtained from his a "certificate" emphatically asserting, 

"Mr. Randolph never received, either directly or indirectly, by himself or by another for his use, one shilling from myself or by my order, or according to my knowledge, here-say or belief, from any other public officer of France. I declare that he never made to me in this respect a single overture; and that no part of the above circumstance has the least relation to him personally. Although the explanation gives the occurrence referred to in his intercepted dispatches is difficult to comprehend, his explicit and emphatic assertions of Randolph's innocence, accompanied by Randolph’s own emphatic denials, should in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary be accepted, especially as the original account on which the charges are based is itself so confused and incomprehensible. Having gone carefully over the evidence again, I am of the decided opinion, that Randolph is not only not proved guilty but that Henry Cabot Lodge -- no great admirer of Randolph -- was right when he said "that the Secretary of State was corrupt, no one who knew him, as Jefferson said, for one moment believed. Whether he disposed of this charge or not, it was plain to his friends, as it is to posterity, that Randolph was a perfectly honorable man." (154-155)

"Randolph may have been voluble, imprudent, indecisive and unstable, but he was not dishonest, and there is no evidence that he betrayed his government or was more free in his discussions with foreign ministers than was unfortunately the custom of the day." (156)

Randolph ultimately published his elaborate Vindication, and then returned to Richmond. He returned to the practice of law and soon became a leading attorney and was senior counsel in Aaron Burr's defense. However, according to the law at the time, the Secretary of State was responsible for any funds for foreign relations, including any losses that might be sustained. After Randolph resigned, an audit found Randolph owed the United States $499,154.89. After two court cases, the amount still not payed in 1887, showed the Randolph estate now owed, with interest, a balance $61,355.07. There is no word on if the balance was ever paid off. Randolph died September 12, 1813.  (158-159)

In the end, the British covert action succeeded. It successfully thwarted Randolph’s opposition and influence over the Jay Treaty. Before the covert action, Randolph’s opposition had been enough to keep the Jay Treaty from being ratified. However after the action, public attention had been diverted away from the treaty’s inadequacies and towards the manufactured international incident. Then, George Washington had enough leeway to sign the document that favored the British, ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, the British covert action had one more ramification, it increased America’s leanings toward British commerce while increasing the distrust of France. For the British, it was the best of both worlds. For the French, it was nothing short of a formal military and commercial allegiance with their sworn enemy and the French nearly declared open war on the United States. 

As shown, covert action against the United States is not new. Foreign agents tried to influence American politics from the very beginning. The Jay Treaty and Randolph's discrediting are just two successful examples of espionage that took place in the earliest days of the United States by foreign agents of influence. These examples changed America’s influence and course for many years. In the first case, agents stopped America from bargaining from a position of strength and becoming strong enough to defend itself from foreign aggression, and in the second, it undermined the Office of the President to make a decision free from foreign influences. 

Final thoughts about why these two cases are still important: 

Today, covert action continues. Agents of Influence are often found in America's largest international corporations. As the heads of American businesses continue to put profits ahead of national security, covert actions will continue even as overt action become commonplace. America is now directly attacked or indirectly through Agents of Influence probably on a daily basis. Most people involved, as illustrated in the Randolph case, do not know they are being used as an agent of influence. False flag operations, in which one country claims to be another, is no longer the easiest way to influence Americans. Instead, countries like China are influencing America openly through commercial ventures. By concentrating on capitalistic and corporate greed, they have found American's primary weakness -- apathy. For many American's, national security no longer matters as long as there is a buck to be made. 

Bibliography:

Isaacson, Walter. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2003, and Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Press, 2004

Isaacson, Walter. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2003

Dice Robins Anderson, PH.D., LL.D. "Edmond Randolph: Secretary of State (January 2, 1794 - August 19, 1795)." In The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy, edited by Samuel Flagg Bemis. New York: Alfrd A. Knopf, 1927.

President John Jay: May 17th: The Anniversary of His Death

It may seem confusing at first, but before George Washington took office as America's "first President of the United States of America," nine other men held the office! These men were all presidents of the United States (Congress). The first president of the United States Congress is immortalized on the Declaration of Independence. He signed his signature very large, and even today we sometimes hear people say, "Put your John Hancock here." This references the overly large signature of "John Hancock, President of the Congress of the United States."

John Jay was President of the Congress of the United States from 1778-1779. In 1780, he resigned from the Congress and represented the United States on a mission to get formal diplomatic recognition and much needed monetary assistance for the United States from Spain. The mission failed for a variety of fascinating reasons, but that is the subject for another of my blogs about American History.

Most people today do not realize that America had nine presidents before George Washington took office as :America's first President." Each man held the office for a single year and was addressed as "President of the United States."

One of the men, John Jay, is famous today for two reasons: First, he was America's first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Having been offered any position John Jay wanted other than that of Vice-President by President George Washington, John Jay stated he was most qualified to be that of a judge. George Washington knew and respected John Jay's abilities and capabilities and immediately signed the order. No one in the Senate disagreed and Jay's nomination proceeded without a hitch. Second, he is famous for writing five chapters of the world famous Federalist Papers. One question often heard about John Jay is why he only wrote five pamphlets. Without going into a long explanation here, the answer is two-fold. He was too busy holding the office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, and second, the writing took a great deal of time and effort. Normally, official correspondences were written by a professional secretary who transcribed John Jay's abysmal handwriting. However, writing the arguments for the Constitution under strict secrecy meant John Jay had to physically write his own arguments legibly enough for the printer to read. Unfortunately, it is evident that John Jay probably had carpel tunnel problems. So when combined with his enormous professional workload, his obligations in trying to secure a treaty with Spain to settle the southern boundary of the United States and to reopen the Mississippi River to Americans.

John Jay left Spain in 1782 for Paris, depressed and angry and newly indoctrinated into the world of espionage. Someone had been intercepting his mail. In 1780, John Jay wrote Congress strongly suggesting America needed a diplomatic service to deliver its correspondence to Ambassadors and that some sort of coded system should be used. His advice proved valuable and eventually, Thomas Jefferson successfully created a coded system that remains almost unbreakable today. That cypher system remains one of the standard system of encryption that is taught and used today in intelligence organizations around the world.

Once in Paris, John Jay joined Benjamin Franklin. America was still at war with Great Britain. The American's had just won their second major battle and Great Britain needed to save face some way. Congress had instructed Jay and Franklin not to enter into any peace agreement without the consent and advice of France and Spain. While Franklin felt obligated to follow the instructions, Jay did not. Jay knew that France and Spain did not want a strong America for several reasons. He had also experienced their subterfuges first hand and did not trust either country to look out for America's sovereignty. He also knew spies were reporting everything to England, France, and Spain. We now know that Franklin's private secretary was spying for England.

With Franklin laid up in bed with gout, Jay took over as lead negotiator.  Since Adams had not arrived from the Netherlands, Jefferson still at Monticello, and Henry Laurens was being held as a POW in the Tower of London, John Jay was not only the lead negotiator, but the only negotiator available.

The first thing he did was demand England agree to the sovereignty of the United States. Jay refused to treat with anyone from anywhere who did not recognize the sovereignty. Under Franklin, the British negotiators kept calling the United States, "colonies in rebellion." Franklin did not protest, but Jay did. Once the second major battle was won and England knew it had lost the colonies, they immediately came to the table and settled terms. Under Jay's guidance and insistence, France and Spain remained ignorant of the talks between John Jay and the British peace commission.

The peace was signed without consent or advice of France or Spain. This created a rift that nearly created a war with France. John Jay left Paris for England to see first hand how the British people felt about American Independence. He left England even more disgusted than before. He now had no blinders on and no rose colored glasses about foreign affairs. He had seen and experienced too much. The Congress knew and understood John Jay's experiences made him the perfect candidate to fill the position left vacant by John Jay's wife's uncle, Robert R. Livingston. So while John and Sara Jay and their children were returning to New York by ship, Congress elected John Jay to be the second Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

John Jay remained Secretary of Foreign Affairs and elevated the office to what we know as the Secretary of State today under the Constitution. After the Constitution was signed, John Jay remained as the acting Secretary of State for several months until Thomas Jefferson took over as the official first Secretary of State. When that happened, John Jay left the State Department for the Judicial Branch as its first Chief Justice.

As Chief Justice, one of the most important things he did was to formally separate the Judicial Branch from the Executive Branch. George Washington had written Jay to ask for his opinion concerning a treaty obligation. Jay wrote back in a now famous letter signed not only by Jay, but all the other justices as well telling the President that the Supreme Court could not offer any opinions to the President because the court is not part of the Executive Cabinet. The only suggestion the court could offer to the President was to get the Congress to write a law signed by the President concerning the issue. Once the law was signed, it could be challenged in the court. But until then, according to the Constitution, the Judiciary Branch could not be consulted about the constitutionality of a proposed law because it is not part of the Executive Branch.

Since then, the Supreme Court has struck down numerous laws. The several states responded by creating new constitutional amendments to circumvent the inadequate laws. The most direct example of this was the eleventh Amendment to the Constitution which was in response to a person living in one State trying to sue another State for services rendered. The Eleventh Amendment settled a question concerning state sovereignty and legitimacy that the Supreme Court could not address on its own.

If asked about John Jay in the 1830s, most people would have remembered him as the man who almost tore apart the United States. The Jay Treaty, as it has become known, did its job of keeping America out of a war with Great Britain, but it ignited a firestorm that pitched the North against the South, Federalist against Republican, Farmer agains Manufacturer, and Slave Holder against Abolitionist. Worse yet, it placed the United States in the uncomfortable position of either going to war with Great Britain or with France. For most Americans, there seemed no way for America not to go to war.

President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, John Hancock, Aaron Burr, and the other great leaders of America collectively held their breaths. America was in no position to fight another war. It had no standing army or navy. Its new government was under siege from within and from without. Politics was a deadly and viscous way of life. Only the angelic like George Washington seemed to be unscathed by the public. But after the Jay Treaty, even George Washington was attacked in the press. No one was safe. John Jay once joked that he could have traveled at night from Philadelphia to New York by the fires burning his effigy. Even in New York, John Jay was not safe. His house was attacked, but thankfully the Jay family was gone at the time.

Jay left politics and the Supreme Court in 1800. By then, war had been everted. From 1800 until his death on May 17, 1829, John Jay worked with his local church helping people. His reputation is now thoroughly repaired and his philanthropic work well documented. Now, on this anniversary of John Jay's death, I hope his hard work and dedication will be newly re-appreciated too.

John Jay: He did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He did not sign the Constitution. He is not remembered as one of America's Presidents. However, he is remembered for writing part of the Federalist Papers and as the first Supreme Court Justice. But now, I hope you remember him for more; Patriot, Founding Father, and Ambassador, John Jay was instrumental in not only creating the United States, but for keeping her free once she gained her independence. John Jay did not fire a gun in anger. He used the law to propel American into the modern world. His work lives on.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome: The Need to Support "Obama Care"

Antiphospholipid Syndrome:

Today’s blog is mostly personal, partly informative, and somewhat angry. My wife, we’ll call her “C” for the purposes here, was diagnosed with Antiphospholipid syndrome in 1993 after experiencing two spontaneous fetal abortions. We were lucky then to find out one of the doctors who discovered the syndrome in Boston currently worked at our hospital. We were both x-ray technologists there, and it turned out our Radiologist’s spouse was one of the first eight women studied in Boston, when the syndrome was named. He put us in contact with the doctor who knew more about the syndrome and pregnancy than nearly anyone else at the time. Long story short, nineteen years later, we have two healthy teenage boys eating us out of house and home. And yes, that is a good thing. 

However, the story does not end there. Antiphospholipid syndrome causes blood clots, preeclampsia (high blood pressure during pregnancy), rashes, heart valve problems, bleeding problems, movement disorders that make limbs sometimes jerk uncontrollably, cognitive problems like poor memory and dementia, sudden hearing loss, depression and psychosis. Additionally, it may cause strokes, sudden shortness of breath, chest pains, coughing up blood-streaked sputum, and swelling in the legs. To date, my wife “C” has experienced almost every known symptom, except stroke. 

“C” spent the last three days in the hospital because her platelet count, the clotting ability of blood, first got too thin and then too thick. Too thin and internal bleeding can develop where the blood literally leaves the body like water. Too thick, and the blood clots can cause a stroke and death. For three days, the hospital tried to regulate her blood. Eventually, the local hospital simply gave up, saying there was nothing more they could do, and sent her home with several vials of very expensive self-injectable drugs with instructions not to participate in dangerous activities like driving heavy equipment or playing full contact rugby. 

So what causes antiphospholipid syndrome? No one can say for certain why antibodies in the body do not normally attack growing fetuses in the human body. After all, a fetus is very similar to a tumor. Why does the body not simply send blood clots over the placenta feeding the fetus to kill it? With Antiphospholipid syndrome, it does. Women with this syndrome end up losing their baby unless they use proper medication to keep the blood clots from clotting the placenta. Similarly, in Antiphospholipid syndrome, the body mistakenly produces antibodies against the proteins, similar to fat in the bloodstream responsible for, and playing a key role in clotting the blood. These antibodies attack the binding proteins, the ones responsible for creating the weblike mesh that begins the clotting itself. That’s when the problems begin.

As the Mayo website points out, no one knows what the primary cause of Antiphospholipid syndrome is, but it is considered an autoimmune problem that may be caused by a number of things. Even so, it is likely passed on from generation to generation through carriers. The syndrome is most likely found in women, but men get it too. The carrier may not ever exhibit symptoms, or may produce any or all the symptoms. 

Complications may include kidney failure, strokes, cardiovascular problems, lung problems, pregnancy complications, false positive syphilis tests, hearing loss, dementia, blood clots throughout the body; bleeding from the mouth, nose, ears, rectum. Other problems include high blood pressure and fetal death. When combined with epilepsy, which may also be a part of the syndrome, the compounded problems make treatment extremely difficult because so many of the various medications needed to treat the syndrome counteract with one another. 

The problem is that most doctors only treat the symptoms of Antiphospholipid syndrome, and not the underlying condition or the patient in a whole body aggregate approach. Often times physicians do not know the syndrome is, that it exists, or how to treat the syndrome. Instead, they simply treat the individual symptoms and refer the patient to others to treat other symptoms. The over result of care is wanting. 

Today, we called the famous Mayo Clinic for a referral and help. We simply wanted someone, anywhere, who knew, understood, and could help “C” overcome the massive numbers of problems she is experiencing. “C”  no longer has private insurance because no company will cover her condition. After having both heart valves replaced and on so many medications, "C" is simply too expensive to cover. When the person at Mayo found out we lacked insurance, she said that she was sorry, but Mayo cannot help. She might have just as well of said, “We don’t take patients like you who are on public aid.” It was a slap in the face and a reality check. Even the famous Mayo Clinic is bound by money issues. Mayo no longer treat the most difficult patients unless they can pay the fees for treatment.  

For years, as an radiographer technologist, I had always heard, “If you want help and cannot find it where you live, contact the Mayo Clinic. They are the best in the world at helping people with serious medical issues and problems.” Today, I found out that may simply not be true. Simply put, if you have a serious medical condition and need help, but don’t have insurance, don’t bother calling the Mayo Clinic. 

If you are reading this and know of anyone specializing in Antiphospholipid syndrome who is willing to take on a difficult case, please comment. The syndrome is difficult to effectively treat, not well done documented, and not well known. Few physicians know much about it, and those who do, do not treat it as a specialty. 

For further information, please look up Antiphospholipid Syndrome on line. I am not a doctor and do not claim to provide any medical advice for anyone. However, if you have this syndrome, I hope you find someone who does help you, and not simply someone who pushes you off on the next physician, like so many in the Rockford, Illinois area, or like the Mayo Clinic who refused to even evaluate my spouse. 

Many people claim "Obama Care" will lead to socialism and socialized medicine. Given the choice between being treated for life threatening medical conditions without worry and not being treated because we cannot pay for the treatment and dying, I'll take "Obama Care" every day of every year of ever lifetime. I've seen first hand the British System of making sure their citizens are given the medical care they need. When compared to the United State's system of only providing medical care to those who can afford it, to that of the British system of taking care of everyone regardless of their ability to pay for long term care, I would much rather have the British system of medical care.

Transboundary Water Issues: Peace, War, or Terrorism

Executive Summary

In 2010, the United Nations declared safe drinking water and sanitation essential human rights that all other human rights were predicated. Strong competition over water resources leads to two possible outcomes; the environment suffers and people find clean water increasingly difficult to obtain. As water and sanitation become increasingly difficult to find, a government may provide fewer services for its people. When that happens, terrorists and revolutionaries find their necessary footholds to expand. Over time, national security may force at risk governments to enlist the aid of others. When transboundary waters are the root issue, governments often ultimately, work together or go to war. While there is evidence the Israeli “Six-Day War” was a “water war,” the historical debate continues. What is clear, as a result of the Six-Day War, Israel now controls most of the region’s water supply and has no intention of giving it up. Other countries, equally mistrustful, like India and Pakistan, have overcome historical animosities to peaceably work out differences over transboundary water rights, but only after employing a trusted third party. Still other countries came to agreements on their own. A primary example are the countries associated with the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC). Over the last fifty years, more than sixty civil wars, coup d’ tats, and international skirmishes have threatened that water alliance, but the continues to work on basin wide initiatives to save Lake Chad from near certain destruction. These three case studies illustrate how basic criteria must be met before international agreements can be forged. First, there must be trust. Trust must exist between sovereign nations as well as the arbitrator ultimately employed. Without trust, no long term agreements will work. All agreements must be justified by, and predicated on, a perceived unifying threat or issue. Without that amalgamate, no agreement will last. Short of war, regime change, or some biblical event, regimes in control of limited resources cannot be compelled to assist their neighbors. Instead, policy makers must be peaceably encouraged to “do the right thing” for their neighbors. If done properly, sharing resources like water may ultimately bring lasting peace to areas historically embroiled in conflict.

On July 28, 2010, the United Nations proclaimed safe and clean drinking water and sanitation an essential human right necessary for full enjoyment of life and all other human rights. The proclamation called on United Nation Member States and international organizations to offer funding, technology, and other resources to help poorer countries provide clean, accessible, and affordable drinking water and sanitation for everyone. Although the Assembly’s resolution received 122 votes in favor with no votes against, it nevertheless had forty-one countries abstain from making their voices heard. So while the idea of water being a basic human right had merit for most, it seems not everyone agreed.The disagreement may stem from concerns over national security. Past examples exist that demonstrate people and nations fighting to keep or to get water. 

 

Strong competition over water resources lead to two predictable outcomes: The environment suffers, and poor people increasingly have trouble getting water they need. Whenever shortages exist, the chance to make a substantial profits sometimes result in conflicts as poor people no longer can get the water they need. The resulting violence then makes economic development more difficult. As foreign investment decreases in conflicted areas, people and industries in those areas fail to thrive. Sovereign nations then find themselves unable to provide the basic services their people need. Terrorist organization, like Hamas, then provide the services the sovereignty cannot. The area becomes a breeding ground for terrorist organizations and revolutionaries and the government finds itself struggling to survive.  Wherever water security is an issue, the problem often becomes too big for one nation to go it alone. Therefore, sovereign nations increasingly find it necessary to cooperate with one another; making water security not only an international issue, but a unifying force. 

Transboundary water sources are especially vulnerable. Global climate changes, make international water security even more difficult. Choices must be made that effect large areas, often crossing boundaries. “Going it alone,” often is no longer an option. Instead, many nations finding themselves being forced work together, but some resist. Countries wanting to join forces could only do so after fulfilling certain criteria. If the criteria of mutual trust, a perceived unifying threat, and a mutually agreed upon moderator cannot be found, no how agreement on water security can be formed. Three case studies illustrate the point. In the first, several countries directly affected by Lake Chad created, without outside help, an international commission to deal with the problem of sustaining Lake Chad. In the second, because of mutual distrust, Pakistan and India could not agree how to best use the Indus on their own. Only after finding a trusted third party to arbitrate, did any agreement come about. In the third, because there is no perceived unifying threat, Israel sees no advantage in working with it neighbors on water issues. Examined together, these three case studies demonstrate what criteria must be met before water security agreements can ultimately work.

Over the previous four decades, water has been disappearing from Lake Chad at an alarming rate. According to the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC), if nothing is done, within twenty years more than twenty-million people will be at risk of not having the water they need to survive without migrating away from the basin. The basin itself spreads over seven countries: Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Chad, and covers approximately one-eighth of Africa. The LCBC mandate, created in 1964, covers the entire basin area, not just the lake itself. Since the 1970s, the Lake Chad region has experienced a series of devastating droughts. Even at its fullest, Lake Chad only averaged an average depth of seven meters. Therefore, even though it was one of Africa’s largest freshwater lakes, the combination of natural events and man-made mistakes and mismanagement led to the lake shrinking to just one-twentieth its size in just thirty-five years. Now, with Sudan joined as an observer, the LCBC struggles to refill the lake because with irrigation projects now abandoned or left completely dry, people living in the area are increasingly at risk. Recently, the LCBC announced a bold new plan to refill Lake Chad using water that would otherwise have flowed into the open ocean. 

In 2004, the LCBC came up with a novel plan to harness the Congo to refill Lake Chad. The idea was to divert 80 million acre feet of water every year from the Chari River and have it flow almost 1500 miles northwards into Lake Chad. According to Adamou Namata, Niger Water Minister and Chairperson of the LCBC, “If nothing is done, the lake will disappear.” In 2002, several governments met in the rain-forests of Central Africa and signed an agreement on sharing the waters of the Congo. They had hoped to raise five billion dollars for dams and waterworks that would first barricade the Ubangi River, at Palambo in the Central African Republic, and then reroute approximately thirty percent of the water north towards Lake Chad, instead of directly out to sea.

After the Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, agreed to pay $2.5 million for a feasibility study of the project, a Canadian research group, CIMA-International, began the study. 

In February 2013, CIMA-International released its final report. The CIMA agreed that if nothing is done to save Lake Chad, the lake would probably disappear altogether by 2025. However, while the CIMA International agreed the lake could be saved, it would cost a minimum of 14.5 billion dollars, not the five billion earmarked for the venture. Furthermore, the scheme will only work if regional cooperation continues between the countries in the Congo Basin and the Lake Chad Basin unimpeded.”

Even if proposed financing solutions work as intended, Lake Chad basin faces many challenges including: ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, political origins, variable and unreliable rainfall pattern. Additionally, the considerable variability of soil types promote droughts, desertification, and human-caused environmental degradation, and must be considered with the problems that result from deforestation and dam construction. Additionally, historical conflicts may re-erupt producing political issues over sovereignty and other security concerns. However, because of the large number of people who already completely depend on Lake Chad for their water needs, any major failure to the new water project will deprive critical water, and pose a huge and significant security risk to the entire regional population.

The LCBC acknowledges that additional concerns remain even if the project is completed without other issues. For example, people relying on a single water project for all their needs could be deprived of the water because there are no available substitutions. This could become a major issue because, “The complexities and the cascading failures and resulting disruptions among infrastructures will decrease the effectiveness of response and recovery efforts during man-made, natural, or technological hazards, or may result in common cause failures that leave planners and emergency response personnel unprepared to effectively deal with operational continuity and the impacts of these disruptions."

Historically, safeguarding the people in and around the Lake Chad Basin has been a major problem. Since the 1960s, when the main countries solidified their independence from the colonial powers, every one of the basin countries have had civil wars of some degree and some countries remain unstable. According research by Stucki and Niasse, since the 1960s, twenty-six coups and sixteen cases of civil unrest occurred in the region. Additionally, while the area has been relatively calm since 2002, the possibility of a sudden change continues to be possible because several of the countries remain relatively weak. Additionally, the war-torn countries also suffer from financial shortcomings. LCBC member states, that were supposed to provide yearly disbursements to the commission, had not been doing so. So the LCBC seems to be fully dependent on outside donor financing for the project. Those outside influences will affect the LCBC ability to maintain its work once the vast amount of money starts flowing and encourage international criminal groups and terrorists to fully integrate themselves into the region.

The LCBC is an example of a multidimensional international agreement that continued to work even as disputes like civil wars and violence historically plagued the area. The reason the LCBC has worked is that the problem of water security for every country in the area was greater than any one nation could solve on its own. Therefore, the water security issue was a uniting force and an example of how river system led to overcoming territorial disputes because of trust and need.  However, this does not work everywhere. Instead, sometimes an outside trusted moderating force is needed. The conflict between Pakistan and India over the Indus is just such an example. 

The international water conflict between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank is well documented. Because India controls the Indus headwaters and continues to build dams, and Pakistan does not trust India to stand by their word to allow the water to flow unimpeded, the unresolved disputes continue. Furthermore, attempting to control and profit from the Indus increasingly jeopardizes the water resource as diminishing Himalayan glacial runoff quantities shrink, add to tensions between India and Pakistan over water. As Pearce states, this could potentially lead to the world’s first nuclear exchange being triggered between India and Pakistan “because of events in the Himalayas . . . over water.” It is not totally unthinkable. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have had three armed conflicts since the two states formed the subcontinent. India created the first conflict when it cut the flow of Indus tributaries which Pakistan relied. Pakistan, fears that India repeat those actions if pressed, and so a delicate balance of international relations over trust and water rights remains.

Geographically, the Indus seven tributaries begin in the Himalayas and flows through India, through Pakistan, and almost two thousand miles later, into the Arabian Sea.

 Today, Pakistan remains a “hydraulic civilization” relying on the waters and tributaries of the Indus River for its irrigation. To continue, Pakistan must overcome a series of challenges. Although Pakistan has harnessed the Indus to create the world’s largest continuous irrigation system, divesting effects of water-logging and salinity have led to extreme national floods. Therefore, each Pakistan success had led directly to new problems. For example, Pakistan faces the prospect that global warming is melting glaciers. As the snow and ice melts continue, less water will enter the Indus. What water entering the system is increasingly being trapped behind more Indian dams built upriver on the Indus tributaries. While India claims the dams only trap the water long enough to create electricity, many in Pakistan, who remember Indian, in 1948, stopped the water flowing into Pakistan. This resulted in Pakistan being “hit hard by the water shortage.” Therefore, the Pakistani’s fear the Indian’s may use the dams as a way to potentially coerce the Pakistanis, should a new crisis emerge. Therefore, besides water, a lack of trust remains a major issue too. However, Pakistan has other issues too. 

Internally, Pakistan problems including trying to reconcile growing urban, irrigation, and the environmental demands of the Indus River, with diminishing quantities of available water. Therefore, Pakistan finds itself in the classic position of a downstream states, “At the mercy of others for its most basic resource,” India, however debates this by claiming Pakistan blames India and others for its reliance on the Indus, and further states Pakistan is getting all the water they needs, but because Pakistan water needs remain “spectacularly inefficient” because there is currently no penalty to be efficient.

Historically, the 1960 treaty between India and Pakistan, moderated by the World Bank became an example of successful negotiation when the President of the World Bank brought Pakistan and India together by getting them to agree they had common interests. This starting point led to a willingness to compromise. The World Bank argued that continued disputes would create a world view that foreign investments in the two territories would be too dangerous. Therefore, once it became clear that the issue of water rights had to be resolved before large amounts of foreign investments would take place in either country, the Indus Water Treaty was signed. However, that clarity took time. Three separate phases of conflicts and resolutions took place before the 1960 treaty was signed. Furthermore, it was only after the original Pakistani government was overthrown by a coup d'état that brought General Ayub Khan to power, that Pakistan agreed to the World Bank’s moderation. Pakistan developed the Pakistan Water Development Authority to work with India. In turn, India agreed to complete engineering works required by the World Bank’s proposal. In return, the World Bank agreed to financially contribute to the works. After decades of negotiations,  the brokered 1960s Indus Waters Treaty bound both territories to share the flow of the river, each taking from three, out of the seven individual tributaries, with a major one, the Chenab, shared jointly.

The Chenab remains the largest source of water for the Punjab. It flows from India’s Kashmir to Pakistan. In 1999, India announced plans to build a large dam on the Chenab. In 2006, Indian engineers began building the dam in southern Doda, just before it crosses the boarder into Pakistan. According to Pakistan, the 525 foot high, billion dollar dam was a clear violation of the 1960 treaty. India disagrees, and states since the dam is only intended to generate hydroelectricity and will not remove water from the river, it is within India’s right to build the dam. However Pakistan continues to claim that since the dam could potentially stop water from flowing into Pakistan, that dam threatens Pakistan’s security. Therefore, Pakistan demanded the issue be arbitrated by the World Bank, but since India denies any breach to the treaty, India refused to submit the Chenab dam to adjudication and instead, continued to build.  Eventually, the World Bank agreed with India, that the dam was not provocative and lent India money to complete the project. It is important to point out the World Bank continues to exercise power over India and Pakistan by either lending, or by threatening to refuse to lend money to India and Pakistan. If the World Bank either can no longer lend money, or if Pakistan or India no longer need the money, a very different dynamic could erupt. However, even if the World Bank ceased to be a major influence in relations between India and Pakistan, outside influence continue to moderate their international relations. For example, India sees China as direct threat to the region. Much of the water from the Indus originates in Tibet, part of which is now claimed by China in an ongoing boarder dispute. Any armed direct conflict between India and Pakistan could therefore potentially result in China entering the conflict because China’s long term goal is to become the entire region’s security force, similar to the United States role in the West. Therefore, India’s diplomatic policy remains to consistently avoid armed conflict unless being directly threatened with military action.

Even so, water continues to be a major issue in the region. Other examples contributing to area tension include wells near Islamabad and Rawalpindi falling more than 2 meters a year; groundwater wells near Gujarat, India needing to be dug more than a kilometer deep to reach potable water; over-pumping aquifers leading to salinization as sea water encroaches. In China, continuing collapse of the “Asian Water Tower” has led to China encroaching on waters traditionally claimed by Pakistan and India. Indian now has more than 4,300 large dams and has a plan to link thirty-seven rivers through a new series of dams and canals. Since China is the world’s most prolific dam builder, in 2008 China helped build 97 dams in 39 mostly developing countries,  it would not seem unreasonable that China may “offer” help and guidance in any new dams being built in the disputed territory of Kashmir, even as China has increasingly become entrenched in water resources elsewhere. So while Lake Chad is an example of international cooperation coming from within, even as internal strife threatened to rip apart the coalition, and the Pakistan-India water treaty remains an example of water being shared through outside coercion, Israel is a primary example of a sovereignty citing vital national security concerns for refusing to relinquish water resources, and is willing to fight a war over water, if necessary. 

Many scholars state a war over water will never happen. Some even claim that, “Since a water war has never actually occurred, the case supporting the war scenario is rapidly losing credibility.” However claiming water wars have never happened ignores the historical record. Throughout history, “Various irritants have fueled water wars” all over the globe. Numerous examples in the United States include range wars fought during the latter half of the nineteenth century and farmers in Twentieth Century California blowing up a water pipeline because water originally being used in fields was designed to be sent to Los Angeles. In other cases, farming protests led to violence and death along the Cauvery River in India, protests in Pakistan along the Indus, and in China over the proposed construction of the Three Gorge Dam. In 1992, twenty-five people died during water riots in Bangalore. In October 2002, after the worst drought in forty years, and India’s Supreme Court ruled against farmers in the Karnataka region, protesters there caused the local government to close schools and colleges. Nationally, the government suspended the trains. With the trains not running, businesses closed and many thousands more rioted. Police eventually restored order using tear gas before being forced to surround the main dams to keep angry farmers from physically attacking the dams.

While those cases cannot be considered wars in the traditional sense, Israel’s Six-Day War should be considered a water war. Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, wrote “The Six-Day War really began on the day Israel decided to act against the diversion of the Jordan . . . While the border disputes were of great significance, the matter of water diversion was a stark issue of life and death.” Sharon then quickly pointed out it was Syria, not Israel, who committed the first offensive act on the Jordan River. In other words, Syria’s effort to divert water from Israel directly affected Israel’s national security. Sharon’s statements prove the Six-Day War was a at least partially a war over water. Furthermore, as a result of the war, Israel’s “hydraulic geopolitical position” improved. Israel “acquired two of three of the Jordan headwaters, riparian access to the entire Jordan River, and access to the Mountain Aquifer in the West Bank.” Therefore, the Six-Day War would rightly be called, by almost anyone’s definition, “a water war.” Since then, Israel got used to having ample water. Now, it has no intention of giving up the Golan Heights its water. Evidently, President Obama did not understand those implications when he suggested that, as did Clinton before him in 2000, that in the interest of building better relations with its neighbors, Israel should reconsider returning the Golan Heights. Of course Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused. Instead, Netanyahu flatly replied there would be no returning to the Pre-1967 war boundary lines.

  

While Netanyahu’s tone may make it appear that he was simply being stubborn, Tindall argues Netanyahu view was correct; returning the Golan Heights to Syria would have lessened, and not improved, Israeli national security. Not only does the Golan Heights play a strategic role as an important military buffer, but also because it provides important water resources. Concerning peace, one Israeli political scientist, Martin Sherman, wrote that some people state Israel should not give an inch if it meant “Implementation of proposed peace initiatives” would transfer seventy percent of Israel’s water supply to the Arabs.” Another pro-Israeli American pressure group argued, “Either Israel has sole control of her national water resources or its very survival is threatened.”

Today, Israel has three main sources of water.  One aquifer runs from the Haifa in the north to Gaza in the south. Over pumping allowed Mediterranean saltwater to fill the porous rocks and while the water continues to be used for some applications, it is too salty to drink. A desalination plant is planned to help take care of that problem. The second source, the Western Aquifer is beneath the West Bank. The third source is the Jordan River.  It currently provides the most water for Israel. While "the fate of the coastal aquifer is a private matter for Israelis, the fate of the West Bank aquifer is a matter of intense dispute between Israelis and Palestinians." Some Israeli’s claim “ceding water for peace” is a viable option, but others disagree.

The peace debate over water raises questions about Israeli Water Commissioner Shimon Tal’s claim that even with current plans to increase recycled sewage and increasing the number and capacity of desalination plants, it will not be enough. Furthermore, “Redistribution of existing water resources to the Palestinians is not an option.” Tal states Israel’s own water needs will soon outstrip the available resources as its own population and manufacturing grows. However, some of Tal’s own hydrologists disagree. They say no such rise in demand needs to occur. Instead, “It is patently ridiculous for Israel to use two-thirds of its water to irrigate crops that generate less than two percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.” Arie Issar, one of Israel’s most vocal hydrologists states, "People talk about water wars, but water can also be the basis for peace." As Issar noted, “We Israelis use too much drinkable water for irrigation when farming is no longer important for our economy. We do crazy things like turning fresh water into oranges and exporting them. The Arabs need that water. They should have it." Other Israeli hydrologists also agree, but for obvious reasons, Israel needs to keep its agriculture. Instead it just needs to be smarter about how it farms. For that reason, Israeli hydrologists argue that once desalination plants are developed and built on the large scale, recycled drinking water as treated sewage placed on farmland, “Would solve the problem.”

 Whatever the final answer concerning Israel’s water issues, one thing is certain, until Jordan, Palestine, and Syria, formally give diplomatic recognition of Israel’s right to exist, Israel sees itself as having no moral obligation to aid its hostile neighbors. Furthermore, until a trusted third party member can be found to negotiate agreements, no successful transboundary will likely be found either. Last, unless Israel discovers some sort of legitimate reason why it should work with its neighbors, or to give up some of its cherished water, it will not. 

In conclusion, Lake Chad, the Indus, and Israel’s water security, confirm how a clear threat to water security must exist before individual nations will accept a common solution for their collective water security concerns. If that threat is perceived as too large for a single nation to hand, as in Lake Chad disappearing, even civil wars and regional strife can be overcome. However trust must be present before agreements can be made. Although India and Pakistan both agreed that economic development of the Indus River would be a beneficial, mutual distrust hampered its development. Therefore, before any agreements could be reached, that issue of trust had to be resolved first. The Indus also demonstrates how employing a third party may help, but should be sought out by the parties themselves, and not simply thrusted upon them by outsiders. Furthermore, any arbitrator must be first be trusted and agreed upon by everyone effected before beginning. Last, Israel shows that a country must have some compelling reason for discussing water security questions with their neighbors. Without that overwhelming unifying force or compelling reason, the justification to give up water, or to change, does not exist. Short of war, regime change, or possibly some biblical event, regimes in control of scarce resources, like water, cannot not be compelled to help others. Instead, internal changes, like those currently advocated by some vocal hydrologists in Israel, may ultimately pressure policy makers to accept using their tightly controlled resources for peaceful and unifying overtures. If done properly, sharing resources like water may ultimately bring lasting peace to areas historically embroiled in conflict.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Secondary Sources:

International Water Security: Domestic Threats and Opportunities. Edited by Nakayama Pachova, and Jansky: United Nations University Press, 2008.

Strategic Intelligence: Windows Into A Secret World, An Anthology. Edited by James J. Wirtz Lock K. Johnson. Los Angeles Roxbury Publishing Company, 2004.

Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-Climate Nexus. Edited by Dominic Waughray. Washington: Island Press, 2011

Black, Maggie, and J. King. The Atlas of Water: Mapping the World's Most Critical Resource. Second ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

Butts, Kent Hughes. "The Strategic Importance of Water." Parameters, Spring1997, 65-83.

Dougherty, James E, and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2001.

Harmon, Christopher C. Terrorism Today. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Pearce, Fred. When the Rivers Run Dry: Water -- The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

Tindall, James, A., and A. A. Campbell. Water Security: Conflicts, Threats, Politics. Denver: DTP Publishing, 2012.

Winters, Harold W. Battling the Elements: Weather and Terrain in the Conduct of War. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Internet Sources: 

"General Assembly Declares Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Is a Human Right," UN News Centre: 2010, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=SANITATION&Cr1=#.UTIndI6AecM

Lake Chad Basin Commission. "Lake Chad Panel Seeks Water Study Including 30-MW Palambo." Hydroworld.com: The Hydro Industry's Proven Authority April 2008, http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2008/04/lake-chad-panel-seeks-water-study-including-30-mw-palambo.html

"Right to Water and Sanitation Vital for Achieving Antipoverty Goals – U.N Officials." 2011, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39163&Cr=sanitation&Cr1=#.UTIlyo6AecM

International, CIMA. "CIMA Press Release: Lake Chad." CIMA International Website, 2009, http://www.international.cima.ca/cgi-cs/cs.waframe.content?click=105396&lang=2

Odada, Eric O. "Lake Chad: Experience and Lessons Learned Brief." 2005,  http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/1665/experience-notes-and-lessons-learned/lakechad_2005.pdf

Rasheed, Gourisankar Ghosh and Sadig. "Integrated Water Resources Management: A Right Based Community Approach Towards Sustainable Development." In Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Harare, Zimbabwe: United Nations, 1998, http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/cn17/1998/background/ecn171998-comu2.htm

Staff, African Seer. "Central Africa: Saving a Shrinking Lake (2)." In African Seer: African's Information Portal Online: African Seer: African's Information Portal Online, 2013, http://www.africanseer.com/news/african-news/252052-central-africa-saving-a-shrinking-lake-2.html

World Bank/Lake Chad Basin Commission. "Lake Chad Basin Project - Environmental Management Plan, English Version." World Bank/Lake Chad Basin Commission, 2002, http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/767/reports/lake-chad-basin-project-maga-dam-safety-assessment-cameroon-english-version.pdf