Chinese soldiers saluting. Photo: AlanShanley on Flickr

Nina Hachigian is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-author of The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise (out in paperback next week).

The news coverage of the U.S.-China relationship is getting more hysterical by the day.

The Washington Post last week ran an editorial accusing the Obama Administration of spending its first year “going out of its way” to “cater” to Beijing. Moreover, the editorial concluded, this approach backfired, and now China is more aggressive than ever, “busting with hubris,” and testing to see how far it can push the new U.S. president.

The Economist’s coverage was nuanced, but its cover this week shows a giant smoking dragon looming over a tiny Barack Obama, who appears to be pleading for a rational chat.

The New York Times has run a series of pieces suggesting the Administration is kowtowing to Beijing, and Robert Kagan and other conservative commentators accuse the Obama administration of appeasing dictatorships and abandoning democracies.

A common narrative in this coverage is that the U.S. decision to sell a large package of arms to Taiwan last week was because Obama administration officials finally realized they needed to take a harder stance. Why? Because their earlier “soft” approach was not working.

What is actually going on here?

The early stages of the U.S.-China relationship during the Obama administration have not played out according to the usual script. The president did not promise on the campaign trail to be “tough” on China — a position he would have been forced to abandon within a few months, just as Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did.

In the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis, the Obama administration instead came to office wanting to preserve the stability of the U.S.-China relationship while also placing a new emphasis on joint global problem solving.

This is not appeasement. This is common respect and pragmatism born of looking down the road at a whole host of challenges — where the only way forward is to cooperate with China. It is also part of a larger administration effort to mend fences around the world by listening and extending basic courtesy, both of which cost nothing.

But cordiality should also not be confused with deference. From the beginning, the administration also made decisions that cut against Chinese interests, such as imposing tariffs on imports of Chinese tires. And despite many accusations to the contrary, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials have repeatedly pressed the Chinese on human rights, both publicly and privately.

The Obama approach has yielded some significant results, especially in the area of climate and energy. During the president’s trip to China in November, deliverables included, among other things, a partnership on developing clean-coal technologies and a collaboration to help China develop an accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory — so we can all know if China is actually bringing those emissions down.

For the first time, China not only voted for tough U.N. sanctions against North Korea last year, it also enforced them. Beijing also joined in a harsh rebuke that the International Atomic Energy Agency issued against Iran in November for its illicit nuclear activities.

Beijing agreed during the darkest days of the financial crisis to coordinate their macroeconomic moves with the United States and other economies around the world and, in line with U.S. wishes, enacted the largest economic stimulus of any country, on a percentage basis.

Of course, the glass is still half-empty. The Chinese position at the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen was better than most had expected six months earlier, but still not nearly enough to actually prevent the worst effects of global warming. Beijing continues to protect Tehran from additional international sanctions.

Beyond the difficulties on the shared global challenges is the Bermuda triangle of the U.S.-China relationship—trade, Taiwan and Tibet—that are always neuralgic. In the space of a week, the Obama Administration promised to sell Taiwan a $6.4 billion in arms, confirmed that the president will meet the Dali Lama in February, and raised the pressure on China’s currency policies.

China’s reaction to all of these actions (so far at least) is well-within historical norms, especially given that Tibet and Taiwan touch at the core of Chinese anxieties about territorial unity and foreign intervention. China’s leaders face pressure from a loud minority of their own citizens screaming for Beijing to take a “tougher” approach to the United States.

Is China more confident? Yes.

Will its increasing diplomatic weight sometimes make it more difficult for America to achieve its priorities? Yes.

Is the Obama administration being “tougher” because it suddenly realizes this? Of course not.

It is continuing a policy to expand areas of cooperation while dealing with the sometimes sharp differences in an open and straightforward manner.

Aside from fulfilling the ever more ubiquitous media practice of characterizing everything in terms of a conflict, the recent China coverage also plays into the larger meme of American decline that is going around like a bad flu. It is true that China is stronger. And America is weaker. But, importantly, the two are not causally linked.

If America is going to get stronger again, it needs to concentrate on its problems at home. Investments in health care, education, innovation and clean energy are the real answers to America’s ability to thrive in a world with stronger powers.

The gridlock in Washington will influence future American generations much more than what China does or doesn’t do this week. The breathless coverage of the latest spat with China is a distraction from the work at hand.

The United States approved the sale of missiles to Taiwan despite Chinese opposition, and President Obama has also agreed to sit down with the Dalai Obama, despite warnings from the Chinese government against such a meeting.

Trade is another point of contention between the two nations, and China today announced that it would place a duty on imports of American poultry. This move is retaliation for an American tariff placed on Chinese tires by the Obama administration in September.

And Obama, this week, also promised to become “much tougher” on Chinese trade.

David Andelman, editor of the World Policy Journal, and Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, join us for our weekly roundtable to talk about Chinese-American relations.

Adam Segal, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and John Delury, associate director of the Center for U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, join Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss U.S.-China relations.

They discuss Taiwan, China’s role on the world stage, and the U.S. response to the Dalai Lama.

Carol Giacomo, a member of The New York Times‘ editorial board, and David Andelman, editor of the World Policy Journal and former foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News, join Martin Savidge for our weekly roundtable.

For more on the Obama and the World series click here.

Barack Obama, the first U.S. president of African origin, visited the continent last summer to great fanfare.

To discuss Obama and Africa, Martin Savidge is joined by Sarjoh Bah, a senior fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, and Emira Woods, co-director of the Foreign Policy in Focus program at the Institute of Policy Studies.

For more on the Obama and the World series click here.

The president and first lady pose with the Turkish prime minister and his wife. Courtesy: Flickr user StatePhotos

For the next two weeks, we present “Obama and the World,” an in-depth interview series that examines the first year of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

This week’s four extended interviews address Iran, Africa, Israel-Palestine and Latin America.

And next week we’ll look at Afghanistan-Pakistan, China, Russia and the global economy.

What is the biggest foreign policy challenge facing President Obama?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please be respectful and on-point. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be banned.

Reid, who recently apologized, is quoted in a new book as saying Obama was electable because he is “light-skinned…with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Racial discrimination takes on many forms around the world.

In Iraq, some estimate that 10 percent of the country’s 29 million people are of African origin.

Much of the black population feel marginalized and are increasingly frustrated about not having a legally mandated share of parliamentary seats — unlike many of Iraq’s other minorities, including Kurds and Christians.

Watch a report by Omar Saleh of Al Jazeera English here:

In Australia, 21-year-old Indian student Nitin Garg was stabbed to death in Melbourne recently. And another Indian man was set on fire outside of his Melbourne home.

Australian police are still looking for the attackers but say they don’t think either crime was racially motivated.

This has upset many Indians — both in Australia and India. A series of violent attacks against Indians in Australia last year had already strained diplomatic relations.

Applications by Indians for Australian student visas have dropped by half, and at least one protest has taken place outside the Australian High Commission in New Delhi.

Watch a recent report by Ashima Thomas of Al Jazeera English on the violence in Australia:

Global Voices blogger Kevin Rennie, a former secondary school teacher and resident of Melbourne, offers a wrap-up from Australian bloggers.

The murder of an Indian man in Melbourne has reignited the debate about racism in Australia and the safety of overseas students. It has also severely strained relations between Australia and India.

And lastly, in our Worldfocus broadcast tonight, we discuss the discrimination faced by Afro-Peruvians.

For the first time, the government of Peru has apologized to the African-Peruvian population for centuries of abuse, exclusion and discrimination.

The government said it hoped the apology would help promote the “true integration” of Peru’s multi-cultural population.

Africans first arrived in Peru in the 16th century as slaves of Spanish conquerors. Today Afro-Peruvians account for 5 to 10 percent of Peru’s 29 million people.

On the blog “Living in Peru,” Andres Flores writes about the history of Africans in Peru:

“According to the anthropologist Humberto Rodriguez, traces of the African culture are strongly marked in the capital. “There are streets in Lima called Malambo, inhabited by large numbers of African descendants. Their roots are not confined only to music and food, they are also seen in their lifestyle, their creolism, language and customs of the city.”

- Geneva Sands-Sadowitz

President Obama delivering a speech. Photo: Flickr user Jurvetson

Ambassador S. Azmat Hassan is a former Ambassador of Pakistan to Malaysia, Syria and Morocco and Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations. He is currently an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University and is a contributing Worldfocus blogger.

Barack Obama’s election as President was universally welcomed. A masterful orator, his speeches promised an attitudinal sea change from the haughty neo-conservatism of the Bush administration.

He said in Prague last April that he wanted to see nuclear weapons abolished from the face of the globe. He put new energy into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by appointing veteran trouble-shooter George Mitchell to oversee a two-state solution. And he imparted new impetus in calming the troubled waters of Afghanistan and Pakistan by recalling to service another diplomatic heavy weight, Richard Holbrooke.

His professions of friendship and goodwill toward the Muslim peoples around the globe, have created a huge impact from Morocco to Indonesia.

It seemed that this modern day Galahad had almost single-handedly succeeded in changing the negative perceptions of the United States abroad. The international community was electrified at the positive change between the Obama and Bush approaches to the world.

Almost a year later, even Obama’s fervent supporters will have to concede that the gap between intention and achievement seems to be distressingly wide. Both his domestic ratings as well as his international allure have shown a downward trend.

In his defense, it could be argued that Obama was dealt a particularly difficult hand. The collapse of the entire financial system was a frightening possibility in September 2008. Therefore much of his time and effort had to be spent in righting the economic ship of state.

Mercifully, a total meltdown, which would have created global chaos, seems to have been averted by Obama and his economic managers. However, markets are still skittish. Unemployment continues to be unacceptably high, while the US is suffering from conditions not experienced since the 1930’s Great Depression. Nonetheless it is possible at least to envisage a recovery around the corner.

Domestic constraints have rightly taken up the lion’s share of Obama’s attention. He is about to spearhead a landmark health care reform, an objective which had eluded Bill Clinton and earlier presidents. His foreign policy priorities therefore continue to remain more of a wish list than as metrics that have been implemented.

I believe that Obama, in his outreach to the global community, had good intentions. He did not want the U.S. to be perceived abroad any longer as a bullying hegemon, but as a thoughtful partner in multilateral endeavors.

I also believe that 2010 will be crucial for Obama to demonstrate that he is not just a good speech maker. He will have to show that he has the perseverance and political will to reestablish U.S. leadership in foreign affairs.

Obama’s expertise was in law and community work. As an intelligent, calm and deliberative man, he excelled in both fields.

Acquiring knowledge and experience in foreign affairs requires time and patience. Navigating Afghanistan, building up Pakistan, nudging India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir, being the catalyst on Israel-Palestine, normalizing with Iran and North Korea – to name just a few major issues – would require much hard work, patience and luck.

I leave President Obama to ponder over the wisdom of Al Masudi, a 10th century Arab chronicler, who stated:

He who stays at home besides his hearth, and is content with the information which he may acquire concerning his own region, cannot be on the same level as one who divides his lifespan between different lands and spends his days journeying in search of precious and original knowledge.

Al Masudi, who lived over a millennium ago, is encouraging us all to get more educated and more involved with international issues that affect everyone.

How about that for a New Year’s resolution?

- S. Azmat Hassan

Obama’s popularity is high in Japan. Photo: Flickr user showbizsuperstar

Conservative columnists and bloggers in the U.S. castigated President Obama for bowing to the Japanese Emperor during his visit to the island nation earlier this month.

Yet, a recent editorial in the English-language newspaper The Japan Times argues that the gesture was seen positively in Japan:

American diplomacy is never without controversy, but who would have imagined that the standard protocol of a bow to the Japanese Emperor from U.S. President Barack Obama would have caused such a fuss?

Apparently, many right-wing critics in America complained that Mr. Obama bowed too low to the Emperor. Those America-centric conservatives took Mr. Obama’s bow as a signal of America’s weakness. Japan and most of the rest of the world saw that bow for what it was — a sincere gesture of respect and a step toward healthier relations.

Those who know Japanese culture even a little would not interpret this type of bow as subservience, much less as any indication of America’s low status on the world stage. In Japan, bowing is as natural as taking off one’s shoes when entering a home, though with more profound meanings. The conservative American critics of Mr. Obama would surely have found fault no matter how deep he bowed.

The arrival of a U.S. president who is aware of the importance of symbolic meanings and diplomatic gestures comes as a relief to most countries after the Bush administration’s scarcity of interaction on any but its own terms.

As Mr. Obama well knows, a bow could have many different meanings within Japanese culture. It can be an everyday greeting, a simple thanks or a deep apology. Mr. Obama’s bow carried less of these meanings than it did a sense of engagement. Stepping into another country’s cultural complexities shows strength of character and self-assurance. Unlike the “cowboy diplomacy” of the former Bush administration, Mr. Obama clearly recognizes cultural realities…

In fact, Mr. Obama’s gesture was not delivered as smoothly as are most of his speeches, which have become popular English-language study materials in Japan. Shaking hands at the same time as bowing nearly 45 degrees combines East and West in an uneasy single gesture. Usually, when East meets West, a bow precedes a handshake, or vice versa, or one is simply dispensed with.

No matter, most Japanese probably would not know the correct way to bow to the Emperor either, and the politeness inherent in his gesture is the key point. Mr. Obama’s bow also indicated recognition that Japan is a unique and sovereign country that holds a large proportion of U.S. government bonds.

Another momentous stop on his Asian tour was the world’s other massive economy, and another major holder of U.S. bonds — China. Mr. Obama’s bow, then, certainly demonstrated a pragmatic element that extends to Asia more broadly. Mr. Obama brought a practical agenda to the tour and a desire to reaffirm connections with Asian governments and Asian economies. The way forward in Asia will only come through sustained and fair-minded negotiations that involve all the region’s countries.

The Bush administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, undertaken with blind disregard for those cultures’ realities, are unlikely to serve as a model for economic revitalization or cultural exchange, much less for spreading democracy. More important than small gestures is the harder work of concrete decisions and sensible actions. Finding common agreements that mutually benefit all countries in the Asian region is now the main focus. Bowing was the easy part.

Blogger Brad Rice reports that the Japanese were so enamored of the U.S. president that they coined a new Japanese verb obamu — to proceed optimistically despite challenging obstacles.

News footage on YouTube of President Obama’s bow to the Japanese Emperor

Sigal discusses the significance of Obama’s announcement to send an envoy to North Korea next month. He also talks about his recent meeting with a North Korean delegation in New York and how willing they are to negotiate.

President Barack Obama is taking the right approach in treating China as a key partner on global challenges by emphasizing the need for joint problem solving on his recent trip. But no one said it would be easy to cooperate with China’s leaders—or thrilling.

Case in point: the joint statement released by President Obama and his counterpart Hu Jintao. The document is remarkable in scope, but shows that the most we can expect on our shared agenda is incremental progress.

A presidential summit is what they call in government an “action-forcing event.” When heads of state meet and the cameras roll, the foreign policy bureaucracies of both nations are motivated to go for the gold. The results of the summit likely represent the most the United States and China could both sign off on at this moment. These gains are not earth shattering, but they unquestionably represent forward movement in some areas.

The most specific and ambitious plans came in climate and energy. In addition to throwing support behind a binding deal at Copenhagen, the two sides agreed to launch, among other programs:

* An electric car initiative
* A joint clean-energy research center
* A partnership on developing clean coal technologies
* A collaboration to help China develop an accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory
* A U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program to bring the private sectors of both nations into the clean-energy transformation so necessary for both nations to undertake

On the economy, less specific plans were announced but the two presidents reaffirmed the role of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations as the premier international leadership forum as well as the “cooperative process on mutual assessment” agreed to by the G-20 last month. This refers to an initiative announced at the recent G-20 summit in Pittsburgh whereby member countries will submit their macroeconomic plans to one another for review.

This G-20 review process could prompt uncomfortable exposure for the Chinese on their undervalued currency, so their recommitment to it is welcome. And though China did not make any new pledges on the value of the renminbi at the summit, the central bank earlier indicated a new flexibility about determining its value, and President Hu vowed, again, to continue to move toward a more domestic demand-led economic growth model. The other side of this needed bilateral rebalancing came in the form of a U.S. promise to rein in its budget deficits over the long term.

The two sides also agreed to push for the reform of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and to provide more resources to these multilateral institutions. That’s good news, and would signal a change if it comes to pass. As a recent report of mine describes, China is engaged in the international system but has not yet used its clout to strengthen international institutions and is decidedly avoiding a leadership role on most global challenges.

Also included in the joint statement were promises to increase cooperation in counterterrorism, agriculture, and pandemic disease. You get the idea: lots of issues, lots of pledges. As they are implemented, though, these could really matter. Each could mean greater safety for individual, ordinary Americans—from terror plots, tainted food, and swine flu.

Ultimately, that is why the relationship with China is so important. Beijing holds big cards on threats that can harm Americans. As a growing export market for U.S. goods and services, it also represents a partial answer on how to generate new U.S. jobs.

But let us be clear—they need us, too. Media stories have played on the theme of China’s rise and America’s decline. But American global leadership is real, it continues, it benefits the Chinese in many ways, and they know it. Interdependence works both ways. America being out in front is what allows China to take a back seat on many global issues.

The difficulty the United States faces in the future will be persuading China to help more in solving global problems– as the earlier mentioned report details– while at the same time being able to live with the reality that China’s leaders are not going to follow the U.S. playbook when it does not serve their interests. The lack of emphasis at the first Obama-Hu presidential summit on pressuring Iran on its nuclear program and the “agree-to-disagree” outcome on human rights and on Tibet illustrate this clearly.

But perhaps the new unilateral U.S. initiative announced at the summit– to send 100,000 American students to China over the next four years– will be the most important outcome from President Obama’s China visit. That program will pay future dividends in a greater understanding of this pivotal power among the American people and provide the Chinese who encounter these students a better sense of us, too.

CHINA: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met with US President Barack Obama in Beijing, where they discussed a range of issues of common concern to both countries. China made few concessions to the U.S.

INDIA: Ahead of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington, the U.S. is asking Pakistan to take actions against the groups allegedly responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

SOUTH KOREA: Legislators of South Korea’s National Assembly were in favor of the government’s latest decision to dispatch military forces to protect civilian aid workers in Afghanistan.

SOMALIA: Late Tuesday a woman accused of committing adultery was stoned to death in Somalia. A judge working for the militant group Al-Shabaab said the women had given birth to a stillborn baby. Her boyfriend was given 100 lashes.

Pirates on Wednesday attacked the US flagged ship Maersk Alabama for the second time. Just seven months ago the ship was attacked and the captain taken hostage, though he was eventually rescued. This time the ship was able to repel the attack.

ITALY: The UN Food and Agriculture Summit ended Wednesday with little progress in the way of a new strategy to combat hunger, as aid agency Oxfam said the effort offered little more than “crumbs” to the one in six people who do not have enough to eat.

GERMANY: Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday that German troops would stay in Afghanistan for another year, though she would not commit additional troops to the region.

UK: Queen Elizabeth II laid out new plans for financial regulation in her speech at the opening of Parliament on Wednesday.

LATIN AMERICA: Analysts say that the number of people per household in Latin America will drop by 18% in 2020.

EL SALVADOR: The government in El Salvador estimates $880 million worth of damage due to flooding and mudslides in the country in early November.

MEXICO: Experts in Mexico say that the epidemic of obesity in children could reduce life expectancy rates in the country.

IRAQ: Preparation for Iraq’s January general elections are on hold because Iraq’s Sunni Arab vice president vetoed part of an election law.

ISRAEL: The United States, in an unusually strong criticism of Israel, voiced dismay at the approval of new Jewish housing in annexed east Jerusalem.

A charity linked to the militant Hamas group offered $1.4 million dollars for anyone who takes an Israeli soldier hostage.

UAE, DUBAI: American talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey apologized to her followers for an episode of her show featuring women from around the world in which a guest from Dubai gave false information about life in Dubai.

PALESTINE: Israeli bulldozers demolished a two-family Palestinian home in the town of Al-Isawiya in occupied East Jerusalem today, the second home demolition in two days.

While Obama has spoken with Chinese leaders in depth about business and trade, human rights issues have not been the main topic of the bilateral dialogue.

Daljit Dhaliwal talks about China’s new role with Jamie Metzl, executive vice president of the Asia Society. He says that China may emerge as a strategic partner.

A checkpoint in the West Bank.

Ambassador S. Azmat Hassan is a former career diplomat and a former Ambassador of Pakistan to Malaysia, Syria and Morocco and Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York. He currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University. He is a contributing blogger for Worldfocus.

In the past decades the United States has taken the lead in initiating a number of diplomatic moves to cut the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are two UN Security Council Resolutions agreed to by the protagonists: the Madrid Peace Process and the Road Map to a two-state solution. These initiatives have largely foundered on the twin shoals of Israeli intransigence and Palestinian disunity.

Enter President Obama with his vow to improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world. His speeches in Egypt and Turkey calling for new beginning were warmly welcomed by Muslims and indeed the wider international community. Obama called for a total freeze on Israeli settlements as a necessary first step to starting comprehensive negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians aimed at ending their conflict. No doubt his motives were sincere. However, his efforts have yielded no concrete results so far.

The Israeli government, led by Netanyahu and his hawkish Foreign Minister Lieberman, have spurned Obama’s entreaties to freeze all settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The U.S. then changed course and is now trying to get the two sides to talk while new settlement blocks continue to be built. No Palestinian leadership can be expected to negotiate in this scenario. The impasse has deepened. US credibility is at a low point in the Muslim world.

The opinion in the street is that Obama lacks the clout with Netanyahu to bring him around to halt all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. Not doing so means that a two state solution will not happen. The ability of the U.S. to act as an honest broker is thus being questioned again. Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas seems to have thrown up his hands in despair. He says he will not be standing for reelection next January.

The U.S. is the main supporter and aid-giver to Israel. U.S. interests in the Middle East apparently dictate that it continues to support Israel — come what may. I disagree with this post-1967 assessment because the Middle East has evolved. Clinging to old shibboleths in foreign policy never helps. But the real question is how long will the Arab countries continue to put up with the abominable status quo of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?

Meanwhile, the Palestinian political leadership is split with the extremist Hamas faction ruling in Gaza while an increasing weak and ineffectual Abbas has a tenuous hold in the West Bank, and Palestinians continue to suffer the daily humiliations of an onerous Israeli occupation.

I think the Obama administration needs to get tough with both the Israelis and Palestinians. Both should be told that they have to get their act together. The Israelis should be told in no uncertain terms that they cannot expect to hold on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem indefinitely. The US should not be squeamish. It must treat Israel as any other country in the Middle East and not as a special case. The Fatah and Hamas factions need to be told to bury their differences, form a unity government and engage with the Israelis. Sometimes tough love produces fruitful results compared to continuing meaningless talks to nowhere.

Whether Obama and his team can summon the political resolve, commitment and impartiality in moving the two parties toward a final settlement of this long standing conflict remains to be seen. One can only hope that Obama will succeed where his predecessors have failed. Otherwise we should brace ourselves for another eruption of bloody fighting with incalculable consequences for peace and stability in the Middle East.

The views of contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

So, Berlin has also played host to some of America’s greatest presidential speeches. In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy delivered his famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” address:

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan delivered his “Tear Down This Wall” speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, imploring the Soviet leader to end the Cold War:

And most recently, in July 2008, Barack Obama spoke to 200,000 Europeans about re-establishing transatlantic bonds in one of his most memorable campaign addresses:

Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani talks with Daljit Dhaliwal about the current situation in Sudan and the Obama administration’s policy shift.

Protesters in Washington D.C. voice their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in April.

The Obama administration continues to revisit the anti-terror policies of the Bush era.   But civil liberties advocates say that the CIA is not cooperating with President Obama.

Worldfocus contributing blogger Sana Saleem argues Pakistanis have a right to know details of the alleged abuse. Read the full post here. An excerpt is below.

The heart-wrenching stories of torture have raised grave concerns globally. Many across the world have questioned these treatments, weighing them as staunch violations of human rights. Most importantly, the American people have shown great concern over the severity of these torture tactics and have demanded public release of the interrogation memos of the CIA.

Despite President Obama’s assurance to the CIA officers regarding prosecutions, the concerns of the American people and the world seems to linger on. Reuters reports that sleep deprivation, “insult slaps,” water dousing and “walling,” or slamming a detainee’s head against a wall, were techniques used by CIA interrogators to break high-value detainees, according to an agency memo. The memo goes on outlining that the the goal of interrogation is to create a state of learned helplessness and dependence conducive to the collection of intelligence. Further elaborating the memo the Washington Post stated that after removing the hood, the interrogator opens with a slap across the face — to get the detainees attention — followed by other slaps, the guidelines state…

“Twenty or thirty times consecutively” is permissible, the guidelines say, “if the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question.” And if that fails, there are far harsher techniques to be tried.

This does not end here according to a memo, released under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Amnesty International USA and the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Certain interrogation techniques place the detainee in more physical and psychological stress and, therefore, are considered more effective tools,” these include waterboarding, electrocuting, fake executions and various other methods of psychological and physical torture. Moreover, the new released memo discloses detailed information of types of psychological torture. BBC reports that on various occasions Agents threatened to kill a key terror suspect’s children and sexually assault another’s mother. The US Justice Department is reported to be reopening a dozen prisoner abuse cases, for which John Durham has been appointed as a special US prosecutor for investigations.

For many of us the question is not only about prosecutions, the concern is way beyond that of prosecutions, it is mainly about the truth that should be made public. The detailed reports on abuse and torture and the assurance that the US is determined to mark an end to it, are of primary concern. The strong emphasis laid on the release of the memos is proof enough that the people demand a detailed answer. An investigation about how and to what extend were the tortures carried out and whether or not the authorities are serious about ‘changing their ways’ seems to be the demand…

This is the time to introspect, to ask questions, to explain and to act on. I believe that the truth must be revealed. We have all heard stories of the horrendous torture, its time to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. Especially in Pakistan, where anti-American sentiments continue to be on the rise. If truth is told and prosecutions are sought, a lot will change. It will reflect that the US is serious about strengthening its ties with the Muslim world in particular and is seriously concerned about its global image.

This could be a significant step forward towards the Muslim world, which currently feel ‘threatens’ by the existence of such techniques, provided that these could (and have) lead to innocent people admitting to crime under torture.

As we proudly claim to be the first hand ally of the United States, we deem it our right to know just how far has the US gone to get the ‘desired confessions.’ As a Pakistani, I consider this my right to know details regarding the abuse done. A natural right considering that many Pakistani nationals and foreign nationals arrested from within Pakistan are still detained in Gitmo. With President Obama in the White House, America promised a change not only in America but also on the global front, it’s time we witness that in action and not in mere words.

- Sana Saleem

Photo courtesy of Flickr user futureatlas.com under a Creative Commons license.

Beyond all else, the one thing that all visitors to the Holy Land recognize immediately is that queues don’t work properly. Israelis hate waiting in line.

In the queue for a spot on President Barack Obama’s world tour, Israel is towards the middle of the line, and this maddens many Israelis who are clamoring to be at the very front. Not only is Obama asking them to have savlanut (patience in Hebrew), he is also demanding that Israelis conform to the same rules that exist for other nations.

In the opinion piece “Why Obama Won’t Talk to Israel” in Monday’s New York Times, the editor-at-large of Israel’s center-left Haaretz newspaper strongly urged President Obama to deliver a speech directly to the Israeli people. Aluf Benn asserts that Obama’s major mistake has been putting Israel last in a long line of policy speeches directed at major international constituencies — including Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Africans, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans and Russians. Israelis argue that they deserve an Obama tour de force.

Obama consults with Shimon Peres on July 23, 2008. Photo: Flickr user Barack Obama

Benn’s main point is that Israelis have not taken well to a geopolitical stature well-reduced from the coddling experienced during the Clinton and Bush administrations. He believes that Obama needs to re-elevate Israel in order to carry out viable Middle Eastern peacemaking.

At the moment, the subtleties of the Obama Doctrine clearly do not impress Israelis. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is careful never to allow his office or his country to be a freier, the uniquely Israeli term which best translates as “sucker.” The most important law of Israeli culture is not to be duped, rolled over or cajoled by unfair pressure. This entails always cutting in line, resisting shifty sales pitches and dodging authoritative directives.

Many Israelis do not see the Obama Doctrine as multilateral, balanced and pragmatic. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, Israel is the only one of 25 countries surveyed where approval of the U.S. has declined since Obama took office six months ago.

Many of Obama’s speeches, including one given at Moscow’s New Economic School on July 7, have rung hollow with the Israeli public, where a right-leaning ideology now holds sway:

As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over an other will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game - progress must be shared.

One proponent of the Obama Doctrine is Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund. He summarizes the nascent Obama school of foreign policy:

A world view guided by universal compliance with democratic norms and the rule of law; policies driven by the convergence of shared interests and responsibilities; and a statecraft that does not shirk from the application of military force when necessary but promotes America’s interests with respect for other nations and the strength of joint enterprise.

Many American conservatives, critical of Obama’s ambitious idealism and perceived naivete, have always lambasted the Obama Doctrine for ignoring important aspects of a truly robust foreign policy.

Obama has not even inspired the Israeli left to challenge Netanyahu’s ornery stance domestically. Moreover, a recent poll by the Jerusalem Post revealed that half of Israeli Jews believe Obama is more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel. No surprises there.

Regardless, President Obama knows that relentless expansion of new settlements undermines the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise. Rule of law in the territories is the bottom-line political issue that he wants to address. But as always, both sides employ hardball and scare tactics in trying to get the other side to budge.

Ultimately, Israel will implement a staged withdrawal of the nearly 100,000 settlers who live beyond the major settlement blocs. Most Israelis want to disengage completely from the 95 percent of the West Bank that will form the backbone of the Palestinian state. But unilateral moves don’t pay.

Concrete steps by Israel should be paired with tangible changes by the Arab world, most notably the normalization of diplomatic relations and long-term security guarantees. Israel inevitably will make major concessions: Sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians, respecting permanent boundaries and ensuring a real solution to the refugee problem.

Obama’s campaign visits last year to Sderot to see rocket damage and Yad Vashem to learn about the Holocaust were not just PR moves. He felt supremely comfortable at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site.

In the Times piece, Benn is fundamentally wrong about how much Obama cares about Israel’s interests. This week, a significant number of American VIPs, including George Mitchell, James Jones, and Dennis Ross are visiting Israel — as part of America’s “big hug” with the Jewish state. Moreover, in the Obama Doctrine, Israel’s long-term security and well-being are prioritized over minor damage to Israel’s feelings in the near term.

Obama, a frank and committed broker, has forced Israel from its arrogant perch. The American president will not be a pushover when it comes to cementing a tangible path towards peace. Israel must patiently wait in line for Obama’s visit to Tel Aviv. At the risk of derailing his vision for peace, Obama would be well-served to visit soon.

- Ben Piven

Secretary of Clinton rounded out the emerging power circuit with a trip to India this week.

The Obama administration has been in overdrive building America’s pivotal power relationships with China, Russia and now India. For reasons Mona Sutphen and I describe in our book, this is the right approach to big powers in the current era. A central rationale is that “strategic collaboration” will focus major power assets on transnational threats, which America cannot successfully battle alone.

A lot of legwork goes into building a working relationship, Obama officials have wasted no time. Presidents Hu and Obama have met twice, and every week seems to find another high level U.S. official in Beijing. Secretary of State Clinton was the first in history to go to China before Europe. Next week, the first Strategic & Economic Dialogue, an intense two-day conference co-chaired by Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Treasury Geitner and their Chinese counterparts, will be held in D.C.

President Obama and presidents Medvedev met and issued a comprehensive joint statement not even three months into his term, after Secretary of State Clinton had already hit the “reset” button with her counterpart.   Next came a full fledged summit in Moscow two weeks ago at which the U.S. and Russia agreed to resume arms control talks and to reinvigorate the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.

Secretary of Clinton rounded out the emerging power circuit with a trip to India this week. She inaugurated a “strategic dialogue,” with Delhi and blessed deepening civilian nuclear cooperation. But she came away empty handed on climate, as Delhi refused to commit to any binding targets under a new climate treaty.

It’s one thing to build these working relationships. And it is another for them to work. While we’ve realized some important gains from these rising power relationships already, many others are elusive. The coming years will be filled with frustration as our officials invest countless hours consulting and negotiating — yet we don’t get the kind of help we want from China on North Korea or climate, from Russia on Iran, and from India on Pakistan, to name a few. But at least we will increasingly understand their perspectives, and that will lead to either more policy success or more realistic expectations.

- Nina Hachigian

Photo courtesy of Flickr user u.s. department of state under a Creative Commons license.

There have been protests worldwide against the results of the Iranian election — including in France.

After election results in Iran declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner, many in and out of the country were quick to call foul. Protests ensued in the streets of Tehran and around the world.

President Obama has voiced ”deep concerns” over accusations of election fraud, but has refused to denounce the election, saying “It is not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling [...] in Iranian elections.”

In an open letter to President Obama, Worldfocus contributing blogger Nader Uskowi – a Washington-based Iran analyst and consultant – critiques the president’s approach to Iran.

Dear Mr. President,

I was an early supporter of your presidential campaign throughout the primaries and the general election. Along with hundreds of other supporters in Virginia, I worked tirelessly to deliver the state to you after more than 40 years of Republican presidential victories. I supported your vision of change on domestic and foreign policies, including your call to directly engage the Iranian government to abide by its obligations on the nuclear issue and to halt its support of terrorism.

Sir,

When confronted with the realities on the ground, any good policy or plan needs and must be revised. Your, and our, Iran policy is being challenged by the current realities in the country. In the past four days, the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad government has disregarded the aspirations of the citizens and their basic rights. The students and the youths of the country are being killed, injured and imprisoned. Iranian citizens are calling for change, inspired to a large degree by the message of hope that you, Mr. President, gave them in your Cairo speech.

Mr. President,

There is now a compelling new factor that needs to be added to process of normalization of relations with Iran: the government’s handling of the largest social and political movement in the history of the Islamic Republic. Our government must demand the government in Tehran to guarantee the safety and security of its citizens during their peaceful demonstrations against the outcome of the election.

Normalization of relations with Iran needs to recognize the realities on the ground, which have changed radically in the past few days by a social movement with historic proportions. The normalization process should proceed in a way that will not alienate millions of young citizens whose call for change was inspired by your message of hope. We cannot and should not limit the process to nuclear and terrorism issues. The Iranian people are crying out for change, reminiscent of our days of campaigning here in this country. We must take a moment to remember the broader principles of our democratic society, and support the millions of Iranian citizens that seek to acquire them.

Respectfully Yours,

Nader Uskowi

To read more, see the original post.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user h de c under a Creative Commons license.

For more, view our Voices of Iran extended coverage page and listen to our online radio show on Baha’i faith and modern Iran.