After the U.S. made a heroic effort to help the people of Haiti recover from their recent major earthquake, events on the ground have taken an odd turn. Even after millions of dollars in aid money was donated by American citizens, corporations and the federal government, and direct on-the-ground help from private U.S. aid groups and the U.S. military, it seems that some U.S. efforts are looked on with suspicion. How else to interpret the recent arrest of Baptist missionaries trying to save Haitian children? According to this report in Time Magazine, this group of American missionaries has been charged with child kidnapping and criminal association. Right, I’m sure this Baptist missionary group was really a front for a cabal of child traffickers. I would assume that the Haitian authorities have the discretion to deport the Americans if they wanted to, and yet they choose to jail them. After having examined the initial U.S. response to the Haitian earthquake disaster for this blog, I’m incredulous at the idea of American citizens sitting in jail for trying to help the children of Haiti. I’m not sure what is going on here, what is motivating this action by the suddenly functioning Haitian government, but this actions seems a tad, well, ungrateful.



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The U.S. is working with allies to increase pressure on Iran leading up to a possible imposition of new sanctions over the issue of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. This news-wire report from Reuters notes that the U.S. is in the preliminary stages of drafting a new sanctions resolution:

France and the United States have both prepared informal papers outlining the kinds of punitive measures against Iran the 15-nation Security Council could approve. Senior U.S. and French officials are planning to discuss these ideas with their British and German colleagues by telephone later this week. Once the four have identified the outlines of a possible sanctions proposal, it will be put to Russia and China, which have been reluctant to punish Tehran in the past and worked hard to dilute proposed measures before they were voted on. The full six are also planning a telephone call later this week, though China has yet to confirm its participation. Once the five permanent Security Council members and Germany — often referred to as the “P5+1″ — agree on elements for a sanctions resolution, they can submit it to the full council and prepare a draft resolution to be voted on.

President Obama has emphasized his determination to pursue a diplomatic resolution to this nuclear crisis and the above makes clear that every effort is being made to provide both incentives and sanctions meant to move (or manage) this crisis towards a peaceful outcome. But what if it’s not enough to change Iran’s behavior? This analysis by Carnegie scholar Robert Kagan suggests that recent domestic instability inside Iran may provide a Plan B:

Regime change is more important than any deal the Obama administration might strike with Iran’s present government on its nuclear program. Even if Tehran were to accept the offer made last year to export some of its low-enriched uranium, this would be a modest step down a long, uncertain road. Such a minor concession is not worth abandoning the push for real change. [...] What is more likely: that Iran’s present leadership will agree to give up its nuclear program or that these leaders will be toppled? A year ago, the answer seemed obvious. [...] These probabilities have shifted since June 12. Now the odds of regime change are higher than the odds the present regime will ever agree to give up its nuclear program. With tougher sanctions, public support from Obama and other Western leaders, and programs to provide information and better communications to reformers, the possibility for change in Iran may never be better.

It’s encouraging that the situation in Iran seems to be presenting the U.S. and allies with more options, not less, and that the chances of peacefully resolving this conflict have increased.

Days after saying in his State of the Union speech that he does not quit, President Obama has proposed a budget that will end the U.S. manned space exploration program. The ambitious vision for space exploration proposed by President Bush (commonly called the “Moon, Mars & Beyond” program and officially called the Constellation program), would have seen U.S. astronauts return to the Moon and establish a permanent base camp as a testbed for going on to explore Mars, has been canceled. Instead, Obama has offered NASA more funding meant to inspire private contractors to build a commercial space industry. As this report in the New York Times explains:

In place of the Moon mission, Mr. Obama’s vision offers, at least initially, nothing in terms of human exploration of the solar system. What the administration calls a “bold new initiative” does not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there. In the meantime, instead of using the Constellation’s Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, $6 billion would instead go to financing space taxi services from commercial companies.

I’m saddened to think that the once great U.S. space program that inspired the world with the lunar landings is now reduced to hitching a ride to orbit from commercial companies who have yet to build the hardware. Given that NASA has already spent over $8 billion on the lunar program, including new rockets, this represents a giant leap backwards. Unless Congress acts to reverse this decision, the next person to stand on the Moon, or the first person to stand on Mars, will almost certainly not be an American. Why? Because this proposed budget will gut both the technological and human infrastructure of NASA at a time when other countries have announced their own ambitious space programs. And yes, we are talking jobs, very highly skilled and specialized jobs that will be lost and once gone, they are gone forever. A space capability built over decades will simply no longer exist. If we change our minds in 2025 and say, “hey, let’s start up the manned space program again,” it will be enormously expensive to do and it will take a lot of time to build up the pool of skilled personnel to do the job. It really is, as they say, rocket science. The U.S. has long prided itself on being a space-faring country, a world leader in science and technology, and so a moment of decision is nearing for the U.S. to decide, are we still that country?

Image Credit: NASA

By now you have probably watched or read President Obama’s State of the Union address to Congress last night and you’ve read the reports and analysis (CNN, Washington Post, New York Times) of the speech.

As expected, the speech was heavy on domestic issues and light on foreign policy. President Obama hit all the appropriate and necessary points of such a speech: he encouraged his party, challenged the opposition, defended his policies, called for reform, expressed hope, and reaffirmed enduring American values. This is the formula for the speech and although every president can add to the formula, put an individual spin on it, we’ve come to expect some version of this, with the predictable calls to American patriotism, a reminder of our shared history and values, and a commitment to push forward and preserve the American dream for the next generation.  CNN has put together this interesting look back at “Notable addresses: From Lincoln to Bush” that provides some nice historical context. From a U.S role perspective, I noted that President Obama mentioned the following actions the U.S. has taken in the word:

• prohibited torture
• strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula
• captured or killed al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates
• increasing our troops in Afghanistan and training Afghan security forces
• confronting the threat of nuclear weapons
• negotiating a new arms control treaty with Russia
• working on an international agreement securing all vulnerable nuclear materials
• enforcing sanctions on North Korea
• threatens Iran with growing consequences (sanctions?)
• working through the G20 for global economic recovery
• working with Muslim communities to promote science and education and innovation
• fighting climate change
• helping developing countries with food aid and HIV/AIDS programs
• planning responses to bioterrorism or infectious disease outbreaks
• helping Haiti recover and rebuild

President Obama concluded his comments on foreign policy by noting that, “As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right.” Although he described many of the efforts the U.S. is currently making on the world scene, he did not announce any new initiatives. As a follow-up to the State of the Union speech, President Obama will be taking questions next week submitted by citizens on YouTube. The White House sees this as an opportunity to interact with the people and engage them on the issues raised in the speech. You may submit a question here.

President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union address to Congress tonight. As this report in the Washington Post notes, it is expected that domestic issues will dominate the speech. I’m fairly certain that some foreign policy issues will mentioned, but probably not as many as I would like. From a U.S. role perspective, I’m hoping that President Obama will mention the U.S. role in helping Haiti recover from the recent earthquake, the U.S. role in promoting political reform and reconciliation in Iraq, fighting the war in Afghanistan, negotiating a new arms control treaty with Russia, and countering emerging global threats like climate change. If you would like to participate in a web chat on these issues, Brookings President Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state, and POLITICO senior editor Fred Barbash will be hosting a web chat on Global Threats at 12:30PM EST.

The U.S. is defending freedom on the internet. Amid allegations of cyberattacks on an American company, Secretary of State Clinton gave a speech encouraging China to respect the free flow of information on the net:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The full text can be found here and the full video here. China reacted angrily, denied participating in the attacks, and defended censorship and other restrictions they place on U.S. companies operating in China. Today, Bill Gates weighed in and added his voice to those assessing the situation. Meanwhile, in China, it appears that the issue has become sensationalized, with state media alleging an American conspiracy.

In my day job with an international academic association I’ve worked with Chinese scholars and assisted them in trying to gain access to academic information located on servers in the U.S., sites blocked on their end by the so-called “Great Firewall” of China. It was a frustrating experience for all involved and underscored for me the many ways in which censorship and internet control harms the long-term interests of China. It was, after all, their own scholars who were disadvantaged.

I’m proud of the U.S for defending internet freedom (and of Google for not being evil), and yet I remain skeptical of public diplomacy as a strategy for dealing with China. China would be far more flexible and responsive to quiet diplomacy, when matters are raised at the ministerial level in meetings and not made into a public spectacle. We tend to forget that it was not that long ago that China was a closed society and the transition to a more open and market oriented society is a relatively recent development. Are we expecting too much too soon?

We are witnessing a clash between a country that values freedom and a country that values order. If China can be persuaded that internet freedom can also promote social order, then perhaps they will, in time, lessen their restrictions.

The news media is awash with reports on the first year anniversary of the Obama presidency. Take a look at this assortment on Google News and you will find that the assessment is grim. The Economist, for example, offers this rather dismal analysis of President Obama’s foreign policy:

Mr Obama has been on a goodwill tour of the world, proffering the open hand rather than the fist. Yet he has nothing much to show for it, other than a series of slaps in the face. Israel dismissed his settlement freeze. Going to China with human rights far down the agenda and the Dalai Lama royally snubbed seems to have done Mr Obama no good at all, judging by the fiasco that was the climate-change summit in Copenhagen. Co-operation between the “G2” was supposed to help fulfil Mr Obama’s grandiose promise that his presidency would be “the moment when…our planet began to heal”. Hitting the reset button on relations with Russia has produced nothing more than a click. Offering engagement with the Iranians was worth a go, but has produced nothing yet. This generosity to America’s enemies also sits ill with a more brusque approach to staunch allies, such as Japan (see article), Britain and several east European countries. Some worry that Mr Obama will always be a community organiser, never a commander-in-chief. In fact he did not get to the White House by merely being nice, but by being bold and often confronting awkward subjects head-on. It is not too late for him to toughen up. Firm talk about the budget in his state-of-the-union message would help. Now that the administration’s priority has shifted from engaging Iran to imposing sanctions, Mr Obama may be able to apply the stick and not the carrot. He is due to see the Dalai Lama. He might even, if he can relearn the virtues of bipartisan dealmaking, bully a climate-change bill through Congress. But this will all be a lot more difficult than anything he did in his first year.

I’m hard pressed to find a report offering a glowing assessment of Obama’s foreign policy in the first year, I’ll let you know if I do find one. Personally, I’d have to point to one success that still amazes me - the success of the special envoy system. When it was first announced that there would be special envoys dispatched to the Middle East (George Mitchell) and Afghanistan/Pakistan (Richard Holbrooke), that these special envoys would be given great leeway and discretion, and yet would report to the Secretary of State, I was a bit skeptical that this system would work. Sure, it looked great on paper, but how would it work in practice? Given the big names and big egos involved, it sounded more like a recipe for disaster. One year later, no disaster, no ego trip grandstanding, no meltdowns and it looks like some solid policy work is being done behind the scenes. I think it’s a credit to the professionalism of Secretary Clinton and special envoys Mitchell and Holbrooke that the system has worked as well as it has.

This report in the World Politics Review suggests that the U.S. and our allies have lost a contest you may not have realized we were engaged in. The contest was over energy resources in Central Asia and those of you who believe that much of what happens in world affairs is linked to the competition for energy will be interested to know that it’s over and Russia and China won.

Last month, the West officially lost the new “Great Game.” The 20-year competition for natural resources and influence in Central Asia between the United States (supported by the European Union), Russia and China has, for now, come to an end, with the outcome in favor of the latter two. Western defeat was already becoming clear with the slow progress of the Nabucco pipeline and the strategic reorientation of some Central Asian republics toward Russia and China. Two recent events, however, confirmed it.

One could argue that geographic proximity to Central Asia gave Russia and China a natural advantage in this particular “game” though I have to admit it would have been nice for the home team to mount a more robust challenge. Although this is but one of many ongoing contests that the U.S. is participating in, and certainly not the most important, it does raise an important issue about how the U.S. strategic focus has been dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan.

Photo Credit: Wall Street Journal/ITAR-TASS

My last post highlighted the efforts of the U.S. military to assist the Haiti relief effort and now I’m turning to the commercial and private sector, they have really stepped up to make it easy for people to donate to earthquake relief. Many major U.S. media companies have created special donation portals to allow the public to quickly make donations. Google, for example, has put together this site with disaster relief informaiton. Large cell phone companies like AT&T and Verizon have waived text charges to encourage people to donate money by text messages. Apple has crafted an online site to allow subscribers to donate from within the iTunes store with the donation billed to your iTunes account and the major news media companies have created sites (CNN, for example) showcasing various methods of contributing to the relief effort. The relief effort received a major boost days ago when President Obama appointed former presidents Clinton and Bush to lead the private fundraising effort. In the below video from MSNBC, President Obama makes the announcement flanked by the former presidents:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In this op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times, former President George Bush and former President Bill Clinton write about why they joined together together to lead the fundraising relief effort for Haiti and why they are hopeful for the country’s future. The extraordinary combination of public and private aid efforts gives hope that the people of Haiti will soon receive the food, water, medicine and supplies they need to recovery from this major disaster.

Here is another update on the U.S. role in dealing with the Haiti earthquake disaster. In the MSNBC video report below, Ann Curry reports on how the U.S. military is assisting the Haiti rescue and relief effort. The role of Army, Air Force and Coast Guard personnel is highlighted: