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

As you may have heard, a small gathering is taking place in Copenhagen to discuss the weather. Countries from all over the world are sending delegates to the 2009 Climate Change Conference and heads of state (including President Obama) will soon attend to discuss the dangers of global warming and map out what they intend to do about it. In this backgrounder from the Council on Foreign Relations the agendas of 15 key actors are examined, including the United States. It reveals the real reason that President Obama will most likely disappoint those seeking dramatic action to combat global warming - the U.S. Senate will not support it. Depending on your perspective, the U.S. role in fighting climate change will either be seen as an unfortunate impediment to meaningful curbs on carbon emissions or a timely brake on a social movement that is going faster than the science and the politics will allow.

Photo Credit: ABC News/Library of Congress

The news cycle has moved on and few are talking about President Obama’s Nobel Prize award but the event did prompt me to wonder how the U.S. was doing overall in the prize count. We like to think of the U.S. as producing outstanding achievers in almost every area of human endeavor, but does the Nobel Prize serve as a good barometer of U.S. standing? In looking into this question I found the following report on U.S. wins in the area of science and technology:

After cleaning up in the Nobel science prizes, the United States scored another coup: the peace prize for a president less than nine months in office. At a time when some had begun to question how long America’s pre-eminence in science and diplomacy could last, nine of the 11 nominees who won or shared this year’s five prizes handed out so far are American. [...] The scientists were recognized for work that led to breakthroughs in cancer therapies and antibiotics, and brought the world digital photography and high-speed Internet. [...] However, Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted that Nobels are generally given for work that’s a decade old or more, and that the U.S. mustn’t become complacent. U.S. strength reflects federal financial support since World War II, but it has flattened out or declined while other countries are investing heavily in their own scientific research, he said. “The United States probably will not lose its eminence in science in the coming years, but its pre-eminence, its dominance is, of course, at risk as other countries make their own investments,” he said.

American Nobel victories are great news and I’m happy to congratulate the winners who are expanding the frontiers of scientific and technical knowledge, but I also want to underscore that warning about complacency by noting another recent news report that suggested to me that such success may not be sustainable. You may have heard of the recent report by U.S. Department of Education on American math scores at the 4th and 8th grade levels. The news is not good:

Arne Duncan, releasing a report on the Department of Education’s latest examination of how well American children are doing in mathematics, said no one should be satisfied with what it found. “Today’s results are evidence that we must better equip our schools to improve the knowledge and skills of America’s students in mathematics,” he said. “More must be done to narrow the troubling achievement gap that has persisted in mathematics, and to ensure that America’s students make greater gains toward becoming competitive with their peers in other countries.”

If this trend is not reversed the pipeline that produces leaders in science and technology could run dry in a generation. Education reform has been a goal of many presidential administrations, past and present, and everyone acknowledges the role of education as a foundation for economic prosperity, but we should also acknowledge the role education plays in sustaining high levels of achievement in the sciences. Education reform needs our urgent support if we are to maintain the traditional U.S. role as a top innovator in science and technology.

Like many people I’ve been fascinated with the news that President Obama has won the Nobel Prize. The story isn’t really dying down at all and it’s dominated chat in the blogosphere. What strikes me most about the coverage of this story is how often commentators link the award committee’s reasoning to notions about the proper U.S. role in the world. Of course, the award committee specifically noted Obama’s foreign policy as one reason for the award, and other commentators have explicitly linked it to the U.S. role, describing it as an almost aspirational affirmation of an idealized view of the U.S. role in the world. Take, for example, this commentary from Fareed Zakaria:

I think it’s more an award to America for rejoining the world than recognition of President Obama per se. People here underestimate how relieved the world is to have a more engaged, less bullying America. [...] He ended many “war on terror” practices that made people (both inside and outside the country) see America as betraying its ideals; he reached out to the Muslim world in a way that hasn’t been done before; he made proposals to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenals; he re-engaged on the Israeli-Palestinian issue; he started winding down the Iraq war. All this collectively adds up to a changed American profile in the world — as is evident in President Obama being awarded the prize today.

Has world perception of the U.S. really changed that much? Public opinion poll results noted in this report indicate that it has:

In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world.

If the award committee has indeed given Obama this honor in recognition of reviving and/or restoring what they see as the proper U.S. role in the world it suggests that Obama now has more good-will and political capital to spend on the international stage than any recent president. Expectations are high to see what he will do with it.

There were two important developments today in the Afghan war effort and the debate about the overall strategy. First, President Obama has received an unofficial copy of General McChrystal’s recommendations. I’m a bit confused about how a general’s recommendations can be considered unofficial when given to a president, but that is what the media is reporting. General McChrystal, as you know, is advising President Obama to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan and to more or less repeat the surge strategy that worked in Iraq. The other major development I’d like to call your attention to has to do with the alternative to the McChrystal plan. It has been widely reported in the news media, and I’ve noted it on this blog, that one option on the table has been to decrease the number of troop in Afghanistan and instead rely on drones (UAVs) and special forces to accomplish U.S. goals. The New York Times is reporting that President Obama said this option was mischaracterized by the media and that this option is now off the table:

Several administration officials and lawmakers who attended the session on Tuesday said Mr. Obama was intent on using it to dismiss any impression that he would consider pulling out of Afghanistan. “There is no option that would entail a dramatic reduction in troops,” said one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden made it clear that the option Mr. Biden had proposed was not a pure counterterrorism alternative, relying only on drones and Special Forces to track down leaders of Al Qaeda. Instead, Mr. Biden’s approach would increase the use of such surgical strikes while leaving the overall size of the American force in Afghanistan roughly at the 68,000 troops currently authorized.

While we don’t yet know the final strategy President Obama will adopt for the war in Afghanistan we can now at least clearly define what he won’t do, which is at least progress.

The annual gathering of world leaders to mark the start of a new session of the U.N. General Assembly provides the U.S. president with an opportunity to clearly define his vision of the U.S. role in the world. Think of it as a State of the Union address, except it’s to the world rather than just the country. And just as the State of the Union speech allows a president to promote his domestic legislative agenda to the U.S. Congress, so this speech allows a president to promote his international agenda before the world body. The White House blog notes that President Obama, “took the opportunity to reflect upon his first nine months in office, highlighting his administration’s priorities and looking forward to challenges ahead [and he] outlined the ‘Four Pillars’ he believes are ‘fundamental to the future that we want for our children’: ‘non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.’” The full text of his speech can be found here.

This report in The New York Times notes that Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to examine alleged abuse of prisoners held by the C.I.A., as officials released a 2004 report detailing abuses inside C.I.A.-run prisons overseas:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. named a veteran federal prosecutor on Monday to examine abuse of prisoners held by the Central Intelligence Agency, after the Justice Department released a long-secret report showing interrogators choked a prisoner repeatedly and threatened to kill another detainee’s children. [...] The decision was a significant blow to the C.I.A, and Mr. Holder said he would be criticized for undercutting the intelligence agency’s work. He said that he agreed with President Obama’s oft-expressed desire not to get mired in disputes over the policies of former President George W. Bush, but that his review of reports on the C.I.A. interrogation program left him no choice.

How will this public report and investigation of interrogation practices  impact the U.S. role in the world? Will this be an affirmation that the U.S. is a country that abides by the rule of law and holds itself to a high standard of justice? Will sensational media reports about abuse give support to our enemies and allow them to score propaganda points as they recruit new members? The Council on Foreign Relations offers this summary (CIA Probe and the Torture Debate ) of the debate. This is a complex issue and there are many competing viewpoints. The summary does a great job contrasting sources that say the investigation is needed but it’s not enough, or it’s needed but it goes too far, or it’s not needed and provides propaganda points for our enemies. If you are not familiar with this debate the sources they cite should help you figure out where you stand on an issue that is sure to dominate the headlines for months or years to come.

Photo Credit: CFR/AP

I’d like to take a minute to turn from our usual focus on foreign policy and diplomacy to take a look at science and technology. The U.S. has a proud history of being a world leader in technological innovation. This website, for example, provides a list of U.S. Nobel Prize winners, as of 2008, and it’s impressive, to be sure. Depending on your interests, I’m sure you will recognize the names of the esteemed winners. What can the U.S. do to make sure that this history of innovation continues? This commentary from MSNBC suggests several answers to that question and notes President Obama’s call for a “new spirit of innovation” as an important step in the right direction. A future haunted by global warming is certainly one motivator, as is securing the promise of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and robotics. Emerging technologies promise to create entirely new industries that will become engines of economic progress and prosperity if we invest now in determined efforts to maintain a culture that promotes and rewards innovation.

After several high profile trips abroad, many met with great popular interest and acclaim, we can now ask if President Obama has succeeded in improving the global view of the U.S. role in the world. The World Public Opinion group recently conducted a global poll on this subject:

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that around the world US foreign policy continues to receive heavy criticism on a variety of fronts, even though in 13 of 19 nations most people say they have confidence in President Obama to do the right thing in international affairs. The US is criticized for coercing other nations with its superior power (15 of 19 nations), failing to abide by international law (17 of 19 nations), and for how it is dealing with climate change (11 of 18 nations). Overall, views are mixed on whether the US is playing a mainly positive or mainly negative role in the world. [...] Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org comments, “Most people around the world seem to have a positive view of the young new captain at the helm of the American ship of state, though many people see this huge ship as still carrying forward domineering policies.”

More poll results, including a country-by-country breakdown and the fine print on the poll’s methodology, have been posted on the World Public Opinion website.