Is the US a Neocolonial power?

Compared to any other country, the US maintains a lot of military bases around the world.

According to the Pentagon's own list PDF, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory.

Many people, especially many Americans, see these bases as playing an important part in maintaining US national security.

Other people, especially those people in foreign countries impacted by US military bases, see these installations differently. For sure, some people see the US military bases as important for their country's national security, but certainly not everyone sees the US bases in that light. Others see the US military bases in their country in less positive terms. For instance, many of the people living in Vieques, Puerto Rico were unhappy with the use of their island as a bombing range by the US Navy. There have been protests in Seoul, South Korea outside US military installations against US involvement in North-South Korean relations. Japanese citizens living in Okinawa have reservations about US Navel and Marine bases. In Ghana, Kwame Nikrumah, an important African politician and anticolonial intellectual, argued that:

Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world

.

What do you think?

Do you think that it is legitimate to call the US a neocolonial power? Why or why not? Can you see how foreigners may dislike US military installations in their country? Or, can you not really see it? Do you think that arguments like this are bogus? Is it more the case that US military bases are more a benefit to the locals and their national security? Should the US be concerned with what locals think about its military installations? Are US national security interests too important to consider local peoples' concerns about the military bases?

US War Powers and the Executive Branch

Continuing our discussion of foreign policy, this week will talk about the US President and his ability to make foreign policy -- especially, his capacity to make war.

Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon:

Back in January, 2006, the Bush Justice Department released a 42-page memo arguing that the President had the power to ignore Congressional restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, such as those imposed by FISA (the 30-year-old law that made it a felony to do exactly what Bush got caught doing: eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants). That occurred roughly 3 months after I began blogging, and -- to my embarrassment now -- I was actually shocked by the brazen radicalism and extremism expressed in that Memo. It literally argued that Congress had no power to constrain the President in any way when it came to national security matters and protecting the nation.

To advance this defense, Bush lawyers hailed what they called "the President's role as sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs"; said the President’s war power inherently as "Commander-in-Chief" under Article II "includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution"; favorably cited an argument made by Attorney General Black during the Civil War that statutes restricting the President's actions relating to war "could probably be read as simply providing 'a recommendation' that the President could decline to follow at his discretion"; and, as a result of all that, Congress "was pressing or even exceeding constitutional limits" when it attempted to regulate how the President could eavesdrop on Americans. As a result, the Bush memo argued, the President had the power to ignore the law because FISA, to the extent it purported to restrict the President's war powers, "would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this Congressionally authorized armed conflict...

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make.

What do you think?

Has the war on terrorism fundamentally changed the role of the US President in making foreign policy, especially in terms of war?

Should the US President (the Executive branch of the government) be the primary maker of foreign policy? Or, should the US Congress have equal authority to make foreign policy and check the policies of the US President?

Should citizens be more involved in US foreign policy making -- that is, should US foreign policy be more democratic? Or, should citizens be kept out of foreign policy decision making and trust their political leaders -- that is, should US foreign policy be more elitist?