Obama 2.0 Confronts Asia (Page 4 of 5)

The lack of good options has generally kept trans-pacific differences regarding how to respond to Iran’s nuclear activities limited. Asian governments, including China and Russia, have generally adhered to some variant of a “two-track” policy that balances diplomacy with sanctions. Of course, as President Obama pointed out earlier, despite U.S. and other international efforts to negotiate a compromise, “It may be that their ideological commitment to nuclear weapons is such that they’re not making a simple cost-benefit analysis on this issue.” 

The nature of the Iranian political system amplifies this problem. The intra-elite splits that have intensified since the disputed 2009 presidential election have complicated reconciliation efforts between Washington and Tehran. An unfortunate dynamic has arisen. Whenever Iranian negotiators have seemed to support a compromise deal regarding their nuclear policies or other activities, reformers as well as nationalists have attacked them for selling out Iran’s interests. An enduring U.S.-Iran reconciliation remains improbable until new political leaders emerge in Iran who enjoy genuine popular support and are capable of envisaging a genuine improvement in relations with the United States. 

The Obama administration is striving to stabilize Afghanistan by the time it withdraws most U.S. combat troops, but whether it can realize such an achievement remains uncertain. At their meetings in Washington last month, Presidents Obama and Karzai agreed to accelerate the U.S. military withdrawal timetable. Obama justified the decision by citing the declared success of the U.S. military surge in Afghanistan in defeating al-Qaeda, weakening the Taliban, and building up the Afghan security forces. Obama later announced in his State of the Union address that 34,000 U.S. troops would be withdrawn over the next year, ahead of all combat troops being out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Obama also discussed the nature of the post-2014 Afghan-U.S. military cooperation, but the two governments provided few details regarding how they planned to implement the Strategic Partnership that they signed last year in Kabul. Nor did the Afghan-U.S. discussions resolve uncertainties concerning how Afghanistan would ensure the holding of free and fair presidential elections in 2014, or achieve progress in the peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban and their foreign sponsors in Pakistan. 

In this regard, Pakistan might see, for the first time in its history, an elected civilian government transfer power to another team of elected civilians. Unfortunately, this spring’s national elections could bring to power politicians less supportive to U.S. interests than the current leaders, who have struggled to sustain minimum cooperation with the U.S. war on terror, especially the use of drone strikes, in the face of their citizens’growing hostility towards the United States. Whoever wins this year’s ballot will find it hard to rein in the elements within the Pakistani intelligence services that support the Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and India. And the temptation will always exist in Islamabad to seek to squeeze Washington by suspending the Pentagon’s use of the ground supply lines through Pakistani territory that convey goods to the NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The administration’s Russian Reset actually helped NATO survive the year-long ban that Islamabad imposed for most of 2011, as the Pentagon was able to transport defense supplies through Russia and its Central Asian allies using the Northern Distribution Network that has been constructed during the Obama administration. Despite this promising improvement, Russian-U.S. relations remain strained over U.S. ballistic missile defense plans, while Washington has been unable to secure all the help it wants from Moscow regarding Iran.  The Russian government’s image among Americans has been deteriorating sharply since Putin’s return to the presidency, with the Pussy Riot scandal, ban on Americans adopting Russian orphans, and government crackdown on civil liberties. Russia’s weakening economy has decreased its global influence, including in Washington. On the other hand, Moscow was angered by the U.S. Congress passing, and President Obama signing, a new law that prohibits Russian officials thought to be involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky from traveling to the U.S. or accessing its banking system. The Russian parliament responded by passing a self-defeating measure limiting Americans’ ability to adopt Russian orphans.


[...] Link: http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/21/obama-2-0-confronts-asia/ [...]

February 27, 2013 at 02:01

Actually I thnk these are some well known chinese products:

1. Tiananmen square massacre,

2. Physical and culture genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang,

3. Melanine-mixed milk for children,

4. Fake rice, fake eggs, gutter-recycled cooking oil,

5. Scheduled killing of prisoners to sale their organs

Just to name a few.

Kim's Uncle
February 26, 2013 at 02:51

@ red chinese dudes,

Go to any bookstores in the Western world or modern Asia and peruse the business shelf, and there you will find no books regarding Chinese companies or Chinese CEOs EVER!!!  That's the impact and influence of Chinese capitalism in the Western world!!  Additionally, go to any US business schools and there you will find not one Chinese company cited as a case model to study!  That's just the truth.  Mature economies do not rely on sub-contracting work by importing components from advanced countries to assemble products for re-export!  That is China.  I just wanted to educate you on your real China!  Like I said before, a developing country can grow tremendously from starting from rock bottom.  But that does not mean it can continue to grow once it achieve a certain level.  Western mature economy grow by creating and inventing things.  It also grow by productivity by improving and innovating processes.  That's not the case in China.  All those companies from China you listed are a joke in the West!       

February 25, 2013 at 14:08

"No Henry Ford, William buffet, bill gates, Larry Ellison, Steve jobs, jeff bezos, etc.??? Just one? How feeble of China!"

But what is the use of these things if the economy is in decline?

February 25, 2013 at 06:29

Really? Hundred of Thousands with drones? where did you get that? Oh, btw I believe more has died in the hands of the Chinese Empire from Qin to the present CCP.

February 25, 2013 at 04:03

Yes to be fair those are well known brands.

Kim's Uncle
February 24, 2013 at 10:15

@ red Chinese dudes, still can’t name one Chinese entrepreneur/business tycoon that has created a business from scratch and built into an empire that is highly respected by the world’s consuming audience? No Henry Ford, William buffet, bill gates, Larry Ellison, Steve jobs, jeff bezos, etc.??? Just one? How feeble of China !

February 24, 2013 at 03:47

By stealing their IPs or forcing their technological transfers, by pursuing a self-interest  mercantilist economic policy: currency manipulation, export subsidy for unfair access to foreign markets, protectionist high tariffs for blocking  foreign exports into chinese market,  suppressing domestic consumption, & business discrimination in favor of chinese local companies, etc. This is what you called ' the art of business'? Shame on you, vic. The world calls it ' the art of big swindle of the global con, China'!

John Chan
February 24, 2013 at 02:31


Whenever you are provided with answers; you and the anti-China clique simply dismissed the answers offhand and used the opportunity to bash China more. You are not here to debate, but to discharge your hatred against China for whatever your personal reasons. Unless you can rein in your emotion and behave, you will be not be taken seriously.

John Chan
February 24, 2013 at 02:19


Coke = vanguard of American imperialism that uses thugs to bust unions fighting for reasonable salary.

Being = death merchant, part of the American MIC that makes profits on the misery of humanity.

Google = peeking Tom and CIA henchman that destroy privacy of human rights and liberty.

Exxon = environment destroyer

HP = dying dinosaur

Nike = label only, living on the blood and sweat of developing nations

Intel = a passé technology mammoth drowning in the sea of mobile technologies.

Bottom line = past glory cannot guarantee future success. Band name is a good will and a virtue reality, living in virtue reality is delusion.

February 24, 2013 at 00:13

China will self-destruct soon because socio-economic disparity thanks to a fake communist regime hell bent on corruption. War is their only way to keep the country united. As for the US, stop outsourcing to china. Seriously, the quality sucks. Bring back at least 50% of manufacturing to home soil and outsource the rest to your allies.

February 23, 2013 at 23:39

Jack Ma??

Great guy and awesome company


Share your thoughts

Your Name
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment

Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief