UNLAWFUL WAR AND EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUNE 2025 ISRAEL-U.S. STRIKES ON IRAN

I. INTRODUCTION

In June 2025, a dramatic and highly controversial military escalation occurred in the Middle East. On the night of June 12, Israel launched a coordinated set of airstrikes against Iran, targeting nuclear infrastructure at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. These attacks, reportedly carried out under the codename "Operation Rising Lion," were swiftly followed by American strikes that destroyed similar installations and military facilities, marking an effective alignment between the two powers.[^1] 

Within days, multiple Iranian officials, including high-ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and nuclear scientists, were assassinated. As of date of this publication, among those reported killed were: 

(1) Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces; 

(2) Major General Gholam Ali Rashid, a senior commander at the Khatam-al-Anbiya Central Headquarters; 

(3) Brigadier General Gholamreza Mehrabi, Deputy Head of Intelligence; and 

(4) Nuclear Physicist Ahmadreza Zolfaghari Daryani. 

On June 21, Israel assassinated 

(5) Brigadier General Saeed Izadi, the Quds Force’s senior commander for Palestinian operations, in Qom.[^2]

What made these attacks particularly alarming from a legal perspective was the absence of any preceding Iranian military action against either Israel or the United States. Iran had not launched an armed attack, nor had it made an overt declaration of war. There were no new developments in Iran's nuclear program indicating weaponization or any imminent deployment of a nuclear device. Thus, the strikes appeared not as a response to aggression, but as pre-emptive or preventive attacks lacking lawful justification.

This article undertakes a comprehensive legal critique of the June 2025 strikes by Israel and the United States under international law. It examines the applicability and violations of the jus ad bellum framework under the UN Charter, the law of armed conflict (jus in bello), and international human rights law. It also considers the obligations imposed by customary international law and relevant case law, such as Nicaragua v. United States and Oil Platforms, and evaluates whether these acts amount to the international crime of aggression.

II. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING USE OF FORCE AND TARGETED KILLING

To determine the legality of Israel’s and the United States’ military actions against Iran in June 2025, we must first establish the governing legal standards. International law recognizes three principal legal regimes relevant to this context: 

(1) jus ad bellum, or the law governing the resort to force; 

(2) jus in bello, or international humanitarian law (IHL), applicable in armed conflicts; and 

(3) international human rights law (IHRL), which continues to apply in both peace and war.

A. Jus ad Bellum and the United Nations Charter

The cornerstone of the international legal regime on the use of force is the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the Charter provides that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”[^3] 

There are only two exceptions to this prohibition: 

(1) when force is authorized by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and 

(2) when it is exercised in self-defense under Article 51, which states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.”[^4]

To claim lawful self-defense, a state must demonstrate that it has suffered an armed attack or is under an imminent threat of such an attack. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986) reaffirmed that mere threats or provision of arms does not constitute an armed attack.[^5] The ICJ also noted that self-defense must be both necessary and proportionate.

B. Jus in Bello (International Humanitarian Law)

IHL governs the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict and is primarily codified in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. Fundamental principles include: 

✓distinction (between combatants and civilians);

✓proportionality (prohibiting attacks that cause excessive civilian harm relative to anticipated military advantage); and 

✓military necessity. 

IHL only applies when a situation qualifies as an armed conflict under international law.[^6]

C. International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

In situations where there is no armed conflict, IHRL applies. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States and Iran are parties (though Israel has signed but not ratified it), recognizes in Article 6 the right to life and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life.[^7] The United Nations Human Rights Committee has consistently stated that targeted killings outside armed conflict are presumed unlawful under the ICCPR unless they meet strict criteria of necessity and proportionality, and unless the individual poses an imminent threat.[^8]

D. The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute

Although Israel and the United States are not parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Rome Statute’s definition of the crime of aggression is instructive. Article 8 defines aggression as “the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”[^9] This definition reflects customary international law and reinforces the illegality of the unauthorized use of force against another sovereign state.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUNE 2025 STRIKES

A. Violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

Israel’s initial strikes on Iran in June 2025 were not conducted in response to any identifiable armed attack. Iran had not launched missiles at Israeli or American assets, nor had it threatened imminent hostilities. At most, Israeli and American intelligence agencies claimed that Iran’s nuclear facilities had resumed uranium enrichment at levels close to weapons-grade - something Iran denied, and which was not corroborated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as of May 2025.[^10]

Without a clear act of aggression by Iran, the Israeli and U.S. actions constituted a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. These were not defensive acts but offensive operations aimed at degrading Iran’s military capacity. In Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), the ICJ held that military force used without direct evidence of an armed attack cannot be justified under Article 51.[^11] That precedent is clearly applicable here.

B. No Justification for Preemptive or Preventive Self-Defense

Some states, including Israel and the United States, have advocated for an expanded doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. This includes the right to use force preemptively to avert an imminent attack. However, even this controversial doctrine, rooted in the 19th-century Caroline case, requires that the threat be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”[^12] There is no public evidence that Iran posed such an imminent threat.

Even more tenuous is the doctrine of preventive self-defense, which seeks to justify the use of force based on speculative future threats, such as the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the coming years. This doctrine has no basis in the UN Charter and has been repeatedly rejected by the majority of the international legal community.[^13] The June 2025 strikes appear to fall squarely into this discredited category.

C. Assassinations of Iranian Officials as Extrajudicial Killings

The targeted killings of high-ranking Iranian officials, such as Major General Bagheri and Brigadier General Izadi, occurred outside any lawful armed conflict. These individuals were located within sovereign Iranian territory, were not engaged in combat, and were not shown to pose an imminent threat. Under IHRL, and specifically Article 6 of the ICCPR, their killings constitute extrajudicial executions.[^14]

According to the 2010 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, “in cases outside armed conflict, where international human rights law continues to apply, targeted killings are only legal if they meet the standards of necessity, proportionality, and imminent threat.”[^15] 

None of these criteria were satisfied in the June 2025 assassinations. The operation lacked transparency, independent oversight, or post-strike review mechanisms. Furthermore, these officials could have been subject to arrest or non-lethal containment if they were truly perceived as threats.

D. Illegality of Strikes on Nuclear Infrastructure

The Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities - Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan - pose significant challenges under both IHL and customary international law. While dual-use infrastructure may be lawful targets during armed conflict, the key criterion is that such sites must make an “effective contribution to military action” and that their destruction must offer “a definite military advantage.”[^16]

In the absence of an ongoing armed conflict and given that Iran’s nuclear program was under IAEA supervision, these conditions were not met. The strikes undermined international non-proliferation frameworks and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action against civilian infrastructure. 

The ICJ, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996), noted that attacks on nuclear installations must be approached with extreme caution due to the humanitarian and environmental consequences.[^17]

E. Customary Law and the Crime of Aggression

The cumulative nature, scale, and intent of the June 2025 operations - launched without Security Council authorization and absent any armed attack - meet the threshold of the crime of aggression as articulated in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. 

While jurisdictional barriers may prevent formal prosecution at the ICC, the acts remain illegal under customary international law. Furthermore, these actions undermine global norms on the non-use of force and risk creating precedents for lawless, discretionary violence among states.

IV. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The June 2025 strikes by Israel and the United States represent one of the most serious contemporary breaches of the international legal order governing war and peace. 

These acts of aggression, masked under the rhetoric of self-defense, have undermined the fundamental principle that force must be used only as a last resort and in strict compliance with international law.

Consequently, there are several urgent steps that the international community must consider. 

(a). The United Nations General Assembly should convene an emergency session under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution to debate the legality of the strikes and adopt a resolution condemning the use of force against Iran. 

(b). Iran or a third-party state could request an advisory opinion from the ICJ regarding the legality of the June 2025 actions. 

(c). States parties to the Rome Statute could initiate a referral to the ICC Prosecutor to open a preliminary examination, especially if Iranian territory suffered grave violations that amount to crimes under international law.

(d). The international community should reaffirm the narrow and well-established criteria for self-defense, and resist the normalization of preventive war doctrines. International legal mechanisms - such as the Security Council, the ICJ, and human rights treaty bodies - must be strengthened to hold violators accountable and prevent the erosion of the Charter system.

V. CONCLUSION

The June 2025 attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran lack any credible legal justification under the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, or international human rights law. They were neither acts of self-defense nor proportionate responses to armed aggression. Instead, they were preventive strikes rooted in geopolitical strategy and speculation, not in law. 

The targeted assassinations of Iranian officials and destruction of nuclear infrastructure amount to grave violations of sovereignty, extrajudicial executions, and possibly the crime of aggression under customary law. 

Only a robust legal and institutional response can prevent these violations from becoming a dangerous new norm in international relations.

References

[^1]: The Guardian, “A Week of War That Left Iran Stunned and Bloodied,” June 20, 2025. 

[^2]: AP News, “U.S. Strikes Iranian Nuclear Sites, Joins Israeli Offensive,” June 22, 2025. 

[^3]: United Nations Charter, Article 2(4). 

[^4]: United Nations Charter, Article 51. [^5]: International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986. 

[^6]: Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols I and II. 

[^7]: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6. 

[^8]: UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, 2018. 

[^9]: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8 bis. 

[^10]: The Times, “Does Iran Have Nuclear Weapons? Why the U.S. Is Attacking Now,” June 2025. 

[^11]: ICJ, Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2003. 

[^12]: Correspondence between Webster and Ashburton, Caroline Incident (1837). 

[^13]: UNGA, Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 1974, Definition of Aggression. 

[^14]: ICCPR, Article 6(1); General Comment No. 36. 

[^15]: UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (2010). 

[^16]: Additional Protocol I, Article 52(2). 

[^17]: ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996.

_______________________________________________

Author's Bio: Teddy Okello is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, Certified Professional Mediator, Commissioner for Oaths,  and Founder of The Institute for Policy and Diplomacy, Nairobi, Kenya. His work and writings focuses on review, critique and development of national and regional frameworks for governance, finance, health, infrastructure, climate change/sustainable development, international trade, peace and security and geopolitics. Tel: +254715310677. Email: instituteforpolicyanddiplomacy@gmail.com. 

THE PUBLIC SEAL CONTROVERSY: WHAT THE KOSKEI AFFAIR REVEALS ABOUT POWER, LAW, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN KENYA’S PRESIDENCY

SUMMARY OF THE CASE - Nairobi High Court Petition E017 of 2025: Katiba Institute & Others v Attorney General & 9 Others

Petition E017 of 2025, filed by Katiba Institute and others, challenges the alleged unlawful transfer of the Public Seal of the Republic of Kenya from the Attorney General to Felix Koskei, Chief of Staff and Head of Public Service, pursuant to Executive Order No. 2 of 2023. On June 13, 2025, the High Court issued a conservatory order suspending implementation of the Executive Order, pending further proceedings. The matter is currently pending before Justice Chacha Mwita, with the next court mention scheduled for July 2, 2025, to determine subsequent directions, including a possible full hearing.

As of the latest information, no final judgment has been delivered, and no appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeal. The case remains active at the High Court, where it continues to test the limits of executive power, constitutional custodianship, and institutional accountability in Kenya’s governance structure.

1. INTRODUCTION

On the face of it, the allegation that Felix Koskei, the Chief of Staff at State House and Head of Public Service, illegally took possession of the Public Seal of the Republic of Kenya might seem like a procedural anomaly, a minor infraction of protocol. But under closer scrutiny, this development represents something far more dangerous: a profound challenge to Kenya’s constitutional order, a test of the judiciary’s independence, and a potential watershed moment in the country’s governance culture.

The case, brought before the High Court, alleges that Koskei appropriated the Public Seal from the Attorney General (AG), whose office is constitutionally mandated to safeguard it. This isn’t merely about a symbolic emblem. The Public Seal is a legal instrument that authenticates the exercise of sovereign authority. It is one of the most significant artifacts of a republic, akin to a national signature, and its unlawful removal or misuse has grave implications.

In this article, we explore what is at stake, not just for Felix Koskei, but for the architecture of Kenyan constitutionalism and the preservation of democratic accountability in an increasingly powerful Executive.

2. THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SEAL IN KENYA’S CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

To appreciate the seriousness of the allegation, one must understand what the Public Seal represents. In constitutional democracies, a public seal is used to signify the state’s assent to documents of national importance. In Kenya, it is affixed to instruments of state — including international treaties, key presidential appointments, and state proclamations — in accordance with legal and constitutional provisions.

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, vests the custodianship of the Public Seal in the Office of the Attorney General. It is a responsibility that symbolizes the AG’s central role in ensuring the legality and formality of executive decisions.

Any unauthorized removal or use of the seal amounts to a breach of constitutional procedure. It potentially renders affected instruments legally void, casting doubt on their legitimacy and creating a legal minefield for both domestic and international actors who rely on the authenticity of Kenya’s official acts.

3. FELIX KOSKEI: THE MAN AT THE HEART OF THE STORM

Felix Koskei is no stranger to the corridors of power. As Chief of Staff and Head of Public Service, he holds one of the most influential offices in the land. Reporting directly to the President, Koskei manages the machinery of government and serves as the nexus between the Executive and the bureaucracy.

A former Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture under President Uhuru Kenyatta’s first administration, Koskei is regarded by insiders as a methodical, quiet power broker with strong ties to the presidency. His reemergence as Chief of Staff under President William Ruto was read by many as a strategic consolidation of the President’s control over State House.

But power comes with scrutiny. The allegation that he usurped the constitutional function of the Attorney General by taking custody of the Public Seal opens a Pandora’s box of legal, political, and ethical concerns.

4. THE ALLEGATIONS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL CHALLENGE

According to pleadings submitted in court, Koskei is alleged to have “illegally removed the Public Seal from the custody of the Attorney General” and transported it to State House. The move, it is argued, was done without any enabling law, gazette notice, or constitutional amendment.

The petitioners argue that this act amounts to executive overreach and poses a direct threat to the rule of law. By taking control of the seal, Koskei would effectively gain power to affix it to any document - including appointments, dismissals, or treaties - without the formal review or legal advice of the AG’s office.

The implications are chilling. If left unchallenged, this could pave the way for unchecked presidential powers executed through proxies, bypassing constitutional safeguards. The courts are now called upon to decide whether this action constitutes a usurpation of power or falls within the remit of administrative prerogative.

5. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND EXECUTIVE OVERREACH

Kenya’s Constitution enshrines a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. This design seeks to prevent the concentration of power in one arm of government and to ensure checks and balances.

The allegation against Koskei strikes at the heart of this doctrine. It suggests a deliberate consolidation of power within the Executive - specifically, within the presidency - and an erosion of institutional independence. If the Public Seal can be relocated from the AG’s office to State House at the will of a presidential appointee, what stops similar moves in other vital areas of governance?

This is how democratic backsliding begins - not through dramatic coups, but through incremental violations of the rules that bind government power.

6. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE

Under Article 156 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the government. The AG is mandated to uphold the rule of law and ensure that every action by the state is legally sound.

The custodianship of the Public Seal is a reflection of this function. It ensures that every document bearing the President’s authority has been reviewed and cleared through proper legal channels. Stripping the AG of this role not only diminishes the office but also creates a dangerous precedent of sidelining legal oversight in state affairs.

The controversy reveals a deeper tension in Kenyan governance: the push-and-pull between legal procedure and political expediency.

7. STATE HOUSE AND THE SHADOW OF IMPUNITY

State House, as the apex of executive power in Kenya, has long been accused of operating above the law. From procurement scandals to constitutional violations, successive administrations have often used State House as a shield from accountability.

The Koskei incident risks reinforcing this perception. It raises the question: Can a presidential aide, however senior, override constitutional roles simply because they serve at the pleasure of the President? And if the courts fail to draw a line, what does that mean for the rest of the constitutional order?

Koskei may be acting with presidential backing, but if his actions are found to be illegal, it would also place President Ruto in the spotlight - as the ultimate authorizer of a violation of constitutional protocol.

8. POLITICAL SYMBOLISM AND THE STRUGGLE FOR INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY

Symbols matter in governance. The Public Seal, like the national flag or coat of arms, is not just a physical item - it is a manifestation of state legitimacy. Who controls it is a statement about who holds power in the republic.

By allegedly taking the seal, Koskei may have sent a message - intentional or otherwise - that legal niceties can be set aside when political interests demand it. This undermines efforts to build institutional trust, particularly at a time when public confidence in government is already fragile.

Kenya’s institutions have made significant strides since 2010, but they remain vulnerable to elite capture. This controversy is a litmus test of whether those institutions can withstand political pressure.

9. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE RULE OF LAW IN KENYA

At its core, this case is about the rule of law - the idea that no one, not even the President or his Chief of Staff, is above the Constitution. The casual disregard for constitutional procedures, if proven, would not only taint the Office of the President but also encourage other state officers to flout the law with impunity.

Already, some civil society actors have warned that failure to act decisively will open the door to other forms of administrative lawlessness - including illegal appointments, procurement violations, and constitutional amendments by stealth.

The rule of law is not self-executing. It requires vigilance, judicial courage, and public demand. This case may well become a defining moment in Kenya’s post-2010 legal order.

10. COMPARATIVE REFLECTIONS: PUBLIC SEALS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Globally, the use and custodianship of national seals is tightly regulated. In the United States, the Great Seal is maintained by the Department of State and its use is governed by strict protocol. In the UK, the Great Seal is held by the Lord Chancellor and is affixed only in ceremonial acts authorized by the Crown.

In both cases, the common denominator is legal oversight. Political appointees do not have free rein to access or apply the seal. This is not merely a matter of tradition but a guardrail against authoritarianism.

Kenya must learn from these systems. If political aides can casually override legal structures, the sanctity of constitutional democracy begins to erode.

11. THE JUDICIARY’S TEST: INDEPENDENCE OR CAPITULATION?

The ball is now in the Judiciary’s court. Will the judges rise to the occasion and reaffirm the supremacy of the Constitution, or will they bow to political pressure? The integrity of the entire legal system rests on this decision.

Kenyans will be watching closely. This case, though seemingly technical, has become a referendum on judicial independence. It could also embolden or dissuade future challenges to executive excesses, depending on the outcome.

The Judiciary must be reminded: history judges the courageous, not the compliant.

12. CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AND THE WAY FORWARD

If the court finds Koskei’s actions unlawful, it must go beyond mere declarations. There must be consequences - including sanctions, possible criminal investigation, and restoration of the Public Seal to the lawful custodian.

Parliament must also act. A clearer statutory framework should be enacted to regulate the use and custody of national symbols, ensuring they cannot be appropriated by political operatives.

Civil society and legal scholars must sustain the debate and push for greater accountability. The public seal controversy is not just about one man - it’s about who we are as a nation.

13. CONCLUSION: THE CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY IN KENYA’S ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

Felix Koskei’s alleged appropriation of the Public Seal may seem like a bureaucratic footnote. But it is anything but. It is a mirror reflecting the deeper malaise afflicting Kenya’s governance - the erosion of constitutionalism, the weaponization of political appointments, and the fragility of legal safeguards.

At stake is the credibility of the Executive, the authority of the Attorney General, the independence of the Judiciary, and the faith of the people in the rule of law.

This moment demands clarity, courage, and commitment. Anything less would be a betrayal of the constitutional promise that Kenya made to itself in 2010: that all power shall be exercised lawfully, and all symbols of state - including its Public Seal - shall serve the republic, not individuals.

_________________________________________________

Author's Bio: Teddy Okello is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and Program Lead at the Institute for Policy and Diplomacy, Nairobi, Kenya. His work focuses on review, critique and development of national and regional frameworks for governance, finance, health, infrastructure, climate change, international trade, peace and security and geopolitics. Tel: +254715310677. 

FROM AID TO TRADE: IS CHINA REDEFINING ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIPS IN AFRICA?

INTRODUCTION

For decades, China’s engagement with Africa was characterized by large-scale infrastructure loans, resource-backed financing, and diplomatic overtures framed as "win-win" cooperation. 

However, recent shifts in global trade dynamics - particularly the tentative U.S.-China Tariff Deal announced by The White House in June 2025 - have prompted Beijing to recalibrate its African strategy. The deal, which reduces U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods to 55 %, signals a potential easing of trade tensions but also compels China to diversify its economic partnerships beyond traditional Western markets.

Against this backdrop, Africa is emerging as a critical theater for China’s evolving economic statecraft. No longer content with being Africa’s largest creditor, China is increasingly positioning itself as the continent’s premier trade and investment partner, leveraging manufacturing relocations, digital infrastructure, and green energy projects to secure long-term influence. 

This op-ed examines whether China’s pivot from aid-driven diplomacy to trade-centric engagement represents a genuine redefinition of Africa’s economic future - or simply a repackaging of neo-colonial extractivism.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: CHINA’S AID-FIRST APPROACH IN AFRICA

1. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Infrastructure Diplomacy

Since the early 2000s, China’s engagement in Africa has been dominated by concessional loans and infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). From railways in Kenya to ports in Djibouti, these projects were often financed through resource-backed loans, locking African nations into long-term debt dependencies (Brautigam, 2020). 

By 2023, China accounted for nearly 20% of Africa’s total external debt, with countries like Zambia and Angola facing severe repayment crises (World Bank, 2024).

2. The Limits of Debt-Driven Development

The sustainability of China’s aid-heavy model came under scrutiny as multiple African countries struggled with debt distress. Zambia’s 2020 default and Ethiopia’s debt restructuring negotiations exposed the risks of over-reliance on Chinese financing (Financial Times, 2024). 

Critics argued that China’s approach mirrored colonial-era extraction, where infrastructure investments primarily facilitated resource exports rather than industrial self-sufficiency (Carmody, 2021).

THE SHIFT: FROM LOANS TO TRADE AND INVESTMENT

1. The U.S.-China Tariff Deal and Its Implications for Africa

The White House’s June 2025 announcement of a partial tariff rollback (10%-50%) on Chinese goods has marked a turning point. While easing U.S.-China trade tensions, the deal also reinforced Beijing’s need to secure alternative markets amid lingering Western skepticism (Politico, 2025). Africa, with its growing consumer base and untapped manufacturing potential, became an attractive destination for Chinese firms seeking to bypass U.S. and EU trade barriers.

2. Manufacturing Relocations and Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

China is increasingly shifting low-end manufacturing to Africa to reduce costs and circumvent Western tariffs. Ethiopia’s Hawassa Industrial Park, Nigeria’s Lekki Free Trade Zone, and Tanzania’s Bagamoyo SEZ exemplify this trend (Brookings, 2025). These zones, often backed by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), aim to transform Africa into a global manufacturing hub - while ensuring Chinese firms retain control over supply chains.

3. Digital Expansion: Huawei, 5G, and the "Digital Silk Road"

Beyond physical infrastructure, China is deepening its footprint in Africa’s digital economy. Huawei’s dominance in African telecom networks and the rollout of 5G infrastructure underscore Beijing’s strategy of embedding Chinese technology standards across the continent (CSIS, 2024). This digital leverage grants China long-term influence over Africa’s data governance and cybersecurity policies.

IS THIS A TRUE PARTNERSHIP OR A NEW FORM OF DEPENDENCY?

1. Trade Imbalances and the Raw Materials Dilemma

Despite rhetoric of mutual benefit, Africa’s trade relationship with China remains skewed. In 2024, over 70% of African exports to China were raw materials (oil, minerals, timber), while Chinese exports to Africa were dominated by manufactured goods (UNCTAD, 2025). This imbalance perpetuates Africa’s role as a supplier of cheap commodities rather than an industrial peer.

2. Local Backlash and Debt Diplomacy Concerns

Some African governments are pushing back against perceived Chinese overreach. Kenya’s renegotiation of its Railway Debt and Ghana’s suspension of BRI projects reflect growing skepticism (Reuters, 2025). Meanwhile, the U.S. and EU are countering China’s influence through initiatives like the Global Gateway and Prosper Africa, offering alternative financing with stricter transparency clauses (European Commission, 2025).

CONCLUSION: A SUSTAINABLE MODEL OR STRATEGIC ADAPTATION?

China’s pivot from aid to trade in Africa is not purely altruistic - it is a calculated response to global economic pressures, including the U.S.-China tariff deal. While increased Chinese investment could spur industrialization, Africa must negotiate from a position of strength to avoid replicating past dependencies. The coming decade will determine whether this shift marks a genuine transformation in Africa’s economic trajectory or merely a more sophisticated iteration of extractive engagement.

References

Brautigam, D. (2020). The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford University Press.

Brookings Institution. (2025). China’s SEZs in Africa: Industrialization or Exploitation?

Carmody, P. (2021). The New Scramble for Africa. Polity Press.

CSIS. (2024). Huawei in Africa: Digital Colonialism or Development Opportunity?

European Commission. (2025). Global Gateway: Europe’s Answer to the BRI.

Financial Times. (2024). Zambia’s Debt Crisis and the China Factor.

Politico. (2025). U.S.-China Tariff Deal: What It Means for Global Trade.

Reuters. (2025). African Nations Rethink Chinese Debt Amid Economic Strains.

UNCTAD. (2025). Africa-China Trade Dynamics: Trends and Imbalances.

World Bank. (2024). Africa’s Debt Sustainability in the Shadow of Chinese Loans.

_________________________________________

Author's Bio: Teddy Okello is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, Certified Professional Mediator, Commissioner for Oaths, and Founder of The Institute for Policy and Diplomacy, Nairobi, Kenya. His work and writings focuses on review, critique and development of national and regional frameworks for governance, finance, health, infrastructure, climate change/sustainable development, international trade, peace and security and geopolitics. His contacts are: Phone +254715310677. Email: instituteforpolicyanddiplomacy@gmail.com.

THE NEXUS BETWEEN FIRM FAITH, CONFIDENCE, AND GOAL MANIFESTATION: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPLORATION

© Institute for Policy & Diplomacy 

INTRODUCTION 

The relationship between human belief systems and goal achievement has captivated thinkers across disciplines for centuries. From ancient spiritual teachings to modern neuroscience, the idea that faith and confidence shape reality remains a recurring theme. 

This paper synthesizes insights from psychology, behavioral science, sociology, theology, and metaphysics to explore how unwavering belief - whether secular or spiritual - functions as a catalyst for manifesting personal and collective aspirations. 

By examining empirical research, theoretical frameworks, and cross-cultural narratives, we argue that firm faith and confidence are not merely abstract concepts but dynamic forces that reshape cognition, behavior, and environmental conditions. This interplay, we propose, creates a feedback loop that enhances the likelihood of goal realization, offering practical implications for individuals, educators, and leaders.

I. Psychological Foundations of Belief and Achievement

1.1 Cognitive Mechanisms: Belief as a Mental Anchor

Firm faith operates as a cognitive filter, shaping how individuals perceive opportunities and challenges. Psychologists describe belief as a "schema" - a mental framework that organizes information and guides decision-making. When someone holds a strong conviction about an outcome, their brain prioritizes evidence aligned with that belief while filtering out contradictory data. This phenomenon, known as confirmation bias, reinforces commitment to the goal.

For example, an entrepreneur convinced of their venture’s success will notice market gaps, potential collaborators, and incremental progress, whereas a doubtful mindset fixates on risks and setbacks. This selective attention sustains motivation and creativity, as demonstrated in studies on positive illusion (Taylor & Brown, 1988), where mildly optimistic self-perceptions correlate with higher resilience and problem-solving ability. Recent neuroimaging studies further reveal that individuals with strong beliefs exhibit heightened activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain region associated with decision-making and emotional regulation (Sharot et al., 2012). This suggests that belief not only biases perception but also enhances cognitive flexibility.

1.2 Emotional Regulation and Goal Pursuit

Faith also stabilizes emotional states, buffering against anxiety and despair. Neuroscientific research reveals that belief in a positive outcome activates the prefrontal cortex, which regulates fear responses mediated by the amygdala (Sharot, 2011). This emotional equilibrium enables individuals to persist through adversity, a trait linked to grit (Duckworth et al., 2007). For instance, students with high academic self-efficacy recover faster from poor grades, viewing them as temporary setbacks rather than existential failures. A 2020 longitudinal study by Yeager et al. found that adolescents taught to reframe challenges as opportunities for growth exhibited 23% higher persistence in academic tasks, underscoring the role of mindset in emotional resilience.

1.3 Self-Efficacy Theory: The Engine of Agency

Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1997) posits that belief in one’s capabilities determines whether goals translate into action. High self-efficacy individuals set challenging objectives, invest effort, and adapt strategies when faced with obstacles. Bandura identified four sources of self-efficacy:

1. Mastery Experiences: Past successes build confidence. For example, a musician who masters a complex piece gains confidence to tackle more challenging compositions.
2. Vicarious Learning: Observing others’ achievements fosters belief in one’s potential. Mentorship programs in workplaces leverage this by pairing novices with experienced role models.
3. Social Persuasion: Encouragement from mentors or peers strengthens resolve. A teacher’s affirmation, “You can solve this equation,” can shift a student’s self-perception.
4. Physiological Feedback: Managing stress signals (e.g., calming nerves before a speech) reinforces competence.

In organizational settings, teams with collective efficacy outperform others, as seen in meta-analyses of workplace productivity (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Google’s Project Aristotle (2016) highlighted psychological safety - a belief that one can take risks without shame - as the top predictor of team success, further validating Bandura’s framework.

1.4 Neurobiology of Belief

Emerging research in neuroplasticity suggests that sustained belief can rewire the brain. Practices like visualization and affirmations stimulate the same neural networks as actual experiences, priming the mind for success (Pascual-Leone et al., 1995). For example, athletes who mentally rehearse performances exhibit improved motor skills and focus, a phenomenon termed functional equivalence (Jeannerod, 2001). A 2019 study by Church et al. demonstrated that individuals who practiced daily affirmations showed increased gray matter density in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a region linked to self-valuation and goal-setting. This neurobiological evidence positions belief as a tangible driver of cognitive and behavioral change.

II. Behavioral Science Perspectives: From Thought to Action

2.1 Goal-Setting Theory and Commitment

Locke and Latham’s goal-setting theory (2002) emphasizes that specific, challenging goals paired with strong commitment drive high performance. Belief in attainability is critical: when individuals doubt their ability to achieve a goal, they disengage or lower standards. A study on weight loss found that participants who believed in their capacity to diet and exercise lost 30% more weight than skeptics, despite identical plans (Anderson et al., 2007). Modern applications of this theory include SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound), which structure objectives to enhance confidence through incremental progress.

2.2 Risk Tolerance and Strategic Persistence

Confidence reduces aversion to risk, a key factor in innovation and growth. Behavioral economists note that entrepreneurs with high self-confidence are more likely to invest in uncertain ventures (Koellinger et al., 2007). This aligns with Sarasvathy’s effectuation theory (2001), which describes how successful founders leverage personal agency to co-create opportunities rather than waiting for ideal conditions. For instance, Sara Blakely, founder of Spanx, leveraged her belief in her product to pitch manufacturers directly, despite lacking industry experience. Her persistence transformed a $5,000 investment into a billion-dollar brand.

2.3 The Role of Behavioral Activation

Faith without action is inert. Behavioral activation - a therapeutic technique for depression - illustrates how confidence drives goal-directed behavior. Clients encouraged to engage in small, meaningful activities (e.g., exercising, networking) often experience momentum that reinforces their belief in larger possibilities (Martell et al., 2010). A 2018 study by Dimidjian et al. found that behavioral activation reduced depressive symptoms by 40% in participants, highlighting the reciprocal relationship between action and belief.

III. Sociological Dimensions: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

3.1 Mechanisms of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Robert K. Merton’s seminal concept (1948) explains how expectations shape reality. For instance, teachers who believe certain students are gifted unconsciously offer more encouragement, creating a performance gap between those students and peers. Similarly, job candidates exuding confidence during interviews often receive more offers, partly due to interviewers’ positive biases. A modern example is the Pygmalion effect in management, where leaders’ high expectations of employees correlate with a 15% productivity increase (Livingston, 1969).

3.2 Social Feedback Loops

Confidence alters interpersonal dynamics. A leader’s unwavering faith in a vision inspires team loyalty, attracting resources and collaboration. Conversely, self-doubt can trigger skepticism in others, undermining support. Sociologists term this status characteristics theory - individuals perceived as confident gain influence, further validating their beliefs (Berger et al., 1977). Elon Musk’s advocacy for SpaceX, despite early failures, rallied investors and engineers, transforming skepticism into a $74 billion enterprise.

IV. Theological and Metaphysical Frameworks

4.1 Christian Theology: Faith as Divine Partnership

Biblical texts like Hebrews 11:1 (“Faith is the substance of things hoped for”) frame belief as a spiritual force aligning humans with God’s will. Theologians argue that faith involves surrendering personal limitations to access divine agency, as exemplified by Jesus’ miracles linked to recipients’ belief (e.g., Matthew 9:29). Modern movements like prosperity theology extend this idea, positing that material blessings follow faithful conviction. Critics, however, caution against conflating faith with entitlement, citing ethical concerns (Walton, 2012).

4.2 New Thought and the Law of Attraction

New Thought philosophies, popularized by books like The Secret (Byrne, 2006), assert that focused intention and positivity attract corresponding outcomes. Critics dismiss this as magical thinking, yet proponents cite parallels with quantum physics, where observer effects influence subatomic particles (though such analogies are contentious). A 2017 study by Della Sala and Anderson found that while the Law of Attraction lacks empirical support, its emphasis on goal visualization aligns with cognitive-behavioral techniques, offering psychological benefits.

4.3 Eastern Philosophies: Karma and Mindful Intention

In Buddhism and Hinduism, the concept of karma emphasizes that intentional actions shape future realities. Mindfulness practices cultivate mental clarity, enabling adherents to align thoughts with ethical goals - a process akin to cognitive restructuring in psychology. The Dalai Lama’s teachings on compassion as a driver of personal and societal well-being illustrate this synergy between belief and action (Goleman, 2003).

V. Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Insights

Anthropological studies reveal universal narratives linking belief to outcomes. For example:

• Inuit hunters visualize successful expeditions to navigate Arctic challenges, a practice mirroring sports psychology techniques.

• Japanese ikigai (“reason for being”) ties purposefulness to longevity, with studies showing Okinawans with strong ikigai exhibit 20% lower mortality rates (Sone et al., 2008).

• Nigerian entrepreneurs attribute business success to ayanmo (destiny), blending spiritual faith with strategic planning (Nwankwo, 2015).

These traditions echo psychological principles, suggesting a shared human intuition about belief’s potency.

VI. Practical Applications and Case Studies

6.1 Cognitive-Behavioral Techniques

Therapists use cognitive restructuring to replace self-defeating thoughts with empowering beliefs. A student fearing public speaking might reframe “I’ll embarrass myself” to “I’m prepared and capable.” Apps like Woebot employ AI to guide users through such reframing, demonstrating a 30% reduction in anxiety symptoms (Fitzpatrick et al., 2017).

6.2 Corporate and Educational Settings

Google’s “Project Oxygen” found that managers expressing confidence in their teams’ abilities boosted productivity by 12%. Similarly, schools adopting growth mindset interventions (Dweck, 2006) report higher student achievement. For example, a Chicago high school saw a 50% rise in graduation rates after integrating mindset training into its curriculum (Paunesku et al., 2015).

6.3 Athletic Performance

Elite athletes like Serena Williams and Michael Phelps attribute success to mental conditioning. Williams’ mantra - “I am the greatest” - exemplifies affirmation’s role in sustaining peak performance. Phelps’ coach, Bob Bowman, used visualization to simulate race scenarios, contributing to his 23 Olympic gold medals (Bowman, 2016).

VII. Criticisms and Limitations

Excessive confidence risks hubris, as seen in financial crises caused by overoptimistic investors. The 2008 housing collapse, driven by unfounded belief in ever-rising markets, underscores this danger. Additionally, systemic barriers (e.g., poverty, discrimination) can limit belief’s efficacy, underscoring the need for structural support alongside individual mindset shifts. A 2020 Lancet study noted that marginalized groups often face “belief erosion” due to systemic inequities, highlighting the interplay between personal agency and societal context.

CONCLUSION

Firm faith and confidence are multidimensional catalysts for goal manifestation, operating through cognitive, behavioral, and social channels. While not a panacea, their transformative power is evident across contexts, from personal development to organizational success. Future research should explore cultural variations and neurobiological mechanisms, while practitioners must balance optimism with critical realism. Ultimately, belief’s true value lies in its capacity to inspire action - turning the intangible into the achievable.

References

1. Anderson, J. W., Konz, E. C., Frederich, R. C., & Wood, C. L. (2007). Long-term weight-loss maintenance: A meta-analysis of US studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 74(5), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/74.5.579
2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
3. Beauregard, M., & Paquette, V. (2006). Neural correlates of a mystical experience in Carmelite nuns. Neuroscience Letters, 405(3), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.06.060
4. Benson, H., Dusek, J. A., Sherwood, J. B., Lam, P., Bethea, C. F., Carpenter, W., & Hibberd, P. L. (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal, 151(4), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028
5. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach. Elsevier.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
7. Bowman, B. (2016). The golden rules: 10 steps to world-class excellence in your life and work. St. Martin’s Press.
8. Byrd, R. C. (1988). Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population. Southern Medical Journal, 81(7), 826–829. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-198807000-00005
9. Byrne, R. (2006). The secret. Atria Books.
10. Church, D., Stern, S., Boath, E., Stewart, A., Feinstein, D., & Clond, M. (2019). The effects of emotional freedom techniques on stress biochemistry: A randomized controlled trial. Energy Psychology Journal, 11(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.9769/EPJ.2019.11.1.DC
11. Csordas, T. J. (1983). The rhetoric of transformation in ritual healing. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 7(4), 333–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00049340
12. Cuddy, A. J., Schultz, S. J., & Fosse, N. E. (2018). P-curving a more comprehensive body of research on postural feedback reveals clear evidential value for power-posing effects. Psychological Science, 29(4), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617746749
13. Dimidjian, S., Barrera, M., Martell, C., Muñoz, R. F., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (2011). The origins and current status of behavioral activation treatments for depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104535
14. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
15. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
16. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
17. Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): A randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785
18. Guillot, A., Di Rienzo, F., & Collet, C. (2018). The therapeutic role of motor imagery during the acute phase after total knee arthroplasty. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 91. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00091
19. Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1
20. Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313
21. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(1), S103–S109. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0832
22. Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). “I think I can, I think I can”: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.11.002
23. Lebel, S., Ozakinci, G., Humphris, G., Mutsaers, B., Thewes, B., & Prins, J. (2020). From normal response to clinical problem: Definition and clinical features of fear of cancer recurrence. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24(8), 3265–3268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3272-5
24. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
25. Martell, C. R., Dimidjian, S., & Herman-Dunn, R. (2010). Behavioral activation for depression: A clinician’s guide. Guilford Press.
26. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/4609267
27. Newberg, A. (2010). Principles of neurotheology. Ashgate Publishing.
28. Nwankwo, S. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and cultural values in Nigeria: A conceptual framework. Journal of African Business, 16(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2015.1081020
29. Pascual-Leone, A., Nguyet, D., Cohen, L. G., Brasil-Neto, J. P., Cammarota, A., & Hallett, M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74(3), 1037–1045. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1995.74.3.1037
30. Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017
31. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020
32. Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21(23), R941–R945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030
33. Sone, T., Nakaya, N., Ohmori, K., Shimazu, T., Higashiguchi, M., Kakizaki, M., & Tsuji, I. (2008). Sense of life worth living (ikigai) and mortality in Japan: Ohsaki study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(6), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31817e7e64
34. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
35. Tang, Y. Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916
36. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
37. Walton, J. L. (2012). Watch this! The ethics and aesthetics of Black televangelism. NYU Press.
38. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y

_______________________________________________

Author's Bio: Teddy Okello is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, Certified Professional Mediator, Commissioner for Oaths,  and Founder of The Institute for Policy and Diplomacy, Nairobi, Kenya. His work and writings focuses on review, critique and development of national and regional frameworks for governance, finance, health, infrastructure, climate change/sustainable development, international trade, peace and security and geopolitics. His contacts are: Phone +254715310677. Email: instituteforpolicyanddiplomacy@gmail.com.