Some foreign policy decisions are causing Barack Obama to be seen as an enigma wrapped in a riddle. The issue is not whether he is tough or a pushover prone to poetic speeches. It is whether he is law-abiding in international relations when under pressure or an illusionist throwing wool over foreign eyes?
The current concern is over his decision to target an American citizen for assassination without offering hard proof of involvement in actual terrorist acts. American Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamic preacher living in Yemen will be shot dead by the US military or its allies on suspicion that his sermons encouraged the Fort Hood shooter and the wannabe underwear bomber. Perhaps the US Constitution gives Obama this authority but that does not lessen the misgiving abroad.
If Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama does this to his own citizen in a foreign country without demonstrating guilt, what might he be capable of doing to foreign citizens in their homelands? The use of violent stealth abroad is the ultimate instrument of coercion in foreign policy. The fact that many innocent local citizens are killed by American missile strikes in countries with which it is not at war makes the violence egregious.
Those whose sovereign and territorial integrity will be violated by assassins obeying a direct order from the US President may perceive an abuse of American power. Regardless of Obama’s wise words about talking to enemies, seeking peace and promoting prosperous democracy, countries other than America’s closest allies will see another proof of US exceptionalism unmindful of international law. Their anger will be amplified by their helplessness as US missiles take the lives of citizens uninvolved with terrorists.
In foreign relations, international laws are agreed to ensure that countries do not use national laws as justification for violent acts perpetrated on foreign territories. Of course, the US has conducted target assassinations secretly for decades outside its own borders but mostly against foreigners with a clear record of killing Americans or posing imminent threat to American lives. For these reasons, governments have turned a blind eye but that may be changing because of the rising “collateral damage” in terms of dead and wounded.
In Pakistan, American drones are currently targeting recognized terrorists who are easier to kill than capture. This is being done with the local government’s tacit permission but it raises the level of fear in many other countries. The US has made missile strikes in countries with which it not at war a regular part of the coercive components of its foreign policy. This has happened and expanded especially under Bill Clinton, George Bush and Obama.
The new element is the extensive toll of innocent civilians caused by the strikes because they are usually conducted through unmanned drones with devastating payloads or cruise missiles. For the moment, the US is able to use such methods without significant reprisals because most governments have no choice but to acquiesce.
Empirical studies of civilian collateral deaths and maiming are few and unclear. But the Pakistani press has cited a ratio of 50-1 and researchers in both Afghanistan and Pakistan suggest that killing the leaders of religion-based terrorists like the Taliban is more likely to increase recruitment than cause the movement to wither away. Usually, younger, tougher and more innovative leaders replace those who are assassinated.
If the phenomenon of drone strikes were temporary, there would be little cause for concern. Many governments understand the imperative need for any US administration to defend Americans by killing terrorists in their hideouts wherever they might be. But everyone knows that this is a generational war. Terrorism against America and its interests is likely to grow and become more sophisticated. Civilian deaths caused by the airstrikes may be a potent fuel for revenge.
Because of the scale, even those who would like to help the US are concerned about what such use of unilateral violence means for their national security and relevance of international laws governing conflicts. No government, not even a friendly dictatorship, can stand by as drones kill its civilians more frequently while assassinating America’s enemies.
The more America assassinates terrorists abroad, the more their cohorts will feel free to conduct assassinations in the US homeland. America uses smart bombs to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Revenge seekers will use whatever rudimentary weapon is at hand.
Their logic will be, “American drones killed 50 civilians in 10 strikes in our homeland and we will take revenge by killing 100 with one attack.” However barbaric this sounds, rage does not speak a softer language. Nor can vengeance be disarmed through assassination or prevented from exploding at some time or another.