reztrop wrote:What do you think of Obama's foreign policy record so far?
He has eliminated top terrorist leaders and authorized far more drone strikes, with results to show for it, than the previous administration.
Second, Obama is turning American attention toward the Pacific.
Obama is maintaining alliances with its Asian neighbors to keep the PRC in check.
Compared to the Bush administration's butt-kissing of the PRC, this is a breath of fresh air.
It's about time that the US pursue engagement with Burma......"Democracy first" in a poor, ethnically-fractured, strategically important country like Burma is a misguided policy.
I'd give Obama a "D" on his handling of the domestic economy though.
I disagree. Alliances to counter China's influence have been longstanding and are nothing new. Furthermore, I would disagree with her term "butt-kissing of the PRC." You had a lot of Bush appointments that were pretty pro-Taiwan. Who serves as the current head of the US-Taiwan Business Council? Answer: Paul Wolfowitz
I have mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand, Obama has been pro-active by first sending then-Senator Jim Webb a few years ago and now Hillary. Asian countries such as Singapore and Australia have been active in Burma for some time and countries that refuse to engage risk losing out in a market that has hardly been penetrated by outsiders.
On the other hand, I think the late Scoop Jackson, a Democrat neocon that mentored Republican advisors/appointments such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams etc in the 70s when many were still Democrats, and the co-drafter of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, would be turning over in his grave. That trade bill in the 70s helped put another nail in the coffin of 'detente' with the USSR by linking human rights with trade. Many of the proponents of Jackson-Vanik in the 70s had prominent positions of power in the Reagan admin in the 80s that helped defeat the "Evil Empire."
By warmly engaging Burma and by considering repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 2012 for Russia before it accedes to the WTO, the Obama administration is not putting enough pressure to prevent further backsliding on democratization, human rights and respect for the rule of law.
reztrop wrote:Second, Obama is turning American attention toward the Pacific. I am very pleased that Obama is maintaining alliances with its Asian neighbors to keep the PRC in check. Compared to the Bush administration's butt-kissing of the PRC, this is a breath of fresh air.
Oh sure, to keep the PRC in check. I'm not surprised because this is a bit of a deja vu for China here. In the 80's when the cold war was still going on, the US similarly befriended China in an effort to keep the Soviet Union in check. That was a time when the US was selling arms to the PRC(obviously hard to imagine the US doing this now), all in the name of counterbalancing the Soviets. And today US is schmoozing up to every dictator and despot in the region because the US has decided that China, same country with the same party as the one in the 80's, is now the world's new evil empire that has to be "contained", "kept in check", and "counterbalanced."
Of course the difference is there's isn't a new cold war going on between US and China. None. As hard as US officials and the western media try to manufacture it, it's just not going to happen. It takes two to tango and China isn't interested. I think the sooner the US stop pretending they're in a cold war with China the better it's going to be for everyone. But I doubt it. Afterall the US need a reason to keep defense spendings up. It's not going to help weapons companies and military towns if there aren't as many ships, fighter planes, missiles and bombs being built.
fred smith wrote:That said, we have very different views as to how to solve the North Korean issue
Sorry to be so irritating but given Chinese actions in the region, what makes you think that the US is manufacturing a new Cold War?