Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A post on November 9th asked if the US still cared about India because of all the attention paid toward Afghanistan and relatively little toward India.

On November 24th, President Obama met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and pledged to visit India next year. In fact, the Obama White House's first state dinner will be in honor of Singh. Hopefully, the china, food and guests will be A-list and Singh will feel properly feted.

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, Beijing, November 2009 (Getty Images)

On his four-nation November 2009 visit to Asia, President Obama met with President Hu Jintao of China and opined that the US and China were not destined to be adversaries. Obama held a town hall meeting in Shanghai and expressed his belief that the US and China can work together on issues such as climate change and nuclear proliferation.

If you poll US citizens, they believe otherwise. Only 51% viewed China as a military threat in a recent CNN poll but 71% percent of Americans viewed China as an economic threat to the United States. Economist Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that the Chinese economy will surpass the US's and become the world's largest in 2035. The United States' debt to China, global competition for markets and energy, influence in the developing world and the struggle for superpower status must doom the US and China to chronic conflict. Right?

Despite wars in Korea and Vietnam, years of tension over the status of Taiwan, and occasional harassment of US ships and airplanes by Chinese armed forces, there has been no significant threat of direct US-Chinese military conflict in decades.

In the economic sphere, the US and China need each other. The US needs Chinese financing, commodities at a sufficiently low price to keep inflation in check and markets for American high-value goods and services. Likewise, China does not want the US to default on its debts nor lose its biggest export market. Looking into the future, if China is to become a global power, it needs better technology, productivity and education - which the US has in vast supply.

There are more reasons for the US and China to cooperate rather than to start a new Cold War. In fact, the US is pushing for Chinese leadership in international bodies like the G-20 because it wants China to shoulder global economic responsibility befitting its economic status. Young people in China as they gain economic independence and greater exposure to Western ideas and culture should gravitate toward a more democratic and open way of thinking.

So, President Obama's appeal for cooperation and collaboration is on the right track ... Well, at least today it is.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (State Department)

Who would want Hillary Clinton's job? Broker a Middle East peace accord? Not me.

Since the Sadat-Begin Agreement of 1977, the Israelis and Palestinians, like a commitment-shy bride and groom, talk of a peaceful, happy life together but cannot seem to make it to the altar. But to her credit, like a good matchmaker, Secretary of State Clinton keeps working to bring the parties together even if they seem to have lost the desire for peace. Her predecessor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't seem to have the stomach for it.

Just in November 2009, Secretary Clinton and her envoy Senator George Mitchell have had to contend with the following.

• A bland meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that produced no substantive results.

• The only Palestinian official whom the Israelis will deal with, Mahmoud Abbas, announces he is quitting as President of the Palestinian Authority.

• Hamas being accused of preventing Palestinian elections in Gaza.

• A rebuke of Clinton for giving the Israelis credit for limiting the construction of new settlements in the West Bank, and subsequently pressure to state that the Israelis should cease building all settlements.

• Palestinians refusal to negotiate with the Israelis until they agree to stop building settlements.

• Israeli Government refusal to assist the UN with its ongoing probe of the Israeli incursion in Gaza in late 2008 and to recognize the findings of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza conflict.

• The Israeli military intercepted a ship carrying cargo believed to be Iranian weapons being shipped to Syria for later transport to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Combine all this with Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel, Netanyahu's lack of enthusiasm for a two-state solution, lack of consensus on the status of Jerusalem, and the thousands of years of animosity and you have a no-win situation. Despite the United States' earnest intentions, real Mideast peace still seems distant.

If Secretary Clinton manages to get an agreement within the next 3 years, then she definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Taj Mahal, Agra, India (AFP/Getty Images)

Do you hear much about India in the news these days? You don't even hear much about American jobs being outsourced to India these days - a US Presidential election issue in 2004.

Before 9/11, the US was careful to act evenhanded toward both India and Pakistan as not to upset their delicate relationship. Earlier in the 1970s and 1980s, staunchly anti-communist Pakistan was the traditional US ally. India's geniality toward the Soviet Union offended US policymakers. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, India has remained one of South Asia's region's most stable democracies despite outbursts of civil unrest and political assassination.

With a growing economy and increasing economic links to the US, it appears that the American Government no longer needs to "manage the India situation" and instead, is focusing on the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

For the US economy to climb out of the recession, it may need more to pay more attention to India, one of the world's most rapidly growing economies.

Australian peacekeeper attracts the attention of East Timorese girls while on patrol in Dili, East Timor's capital. (Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

This week, I took my first trip to Timor-Leste, formerly known as East Timor, and it was an eye-opening experience.

Where is East Timor?

Timor-Leste is part of the Malay archipelago in the South Pacific located north of Australia and near Indonesia. The island is divided into East and West Timor. West Timor is Indonesian territory.

Political History

The Portuguese first landed in Timor in the 16^th century. The island was eventually divided between the Dutch and the Portuguese. Portugal colonized East Timor in 1702. Portugal placed exiled convicts and cultivated coffee in Timor. During World War II, the Japanese captured Timor. After the Japanese surrender, East Timor was returned to Portugal. After Portugal transitioned to a democracy in 1974, East Timor declared its independence from Portugal in 1975. Shortly after independence, Indonesia invaded East Timor and annexed it quickly as its 27^th province. Timorese guerillas continued to battle the Indonesian military during the occupation.

The period of Indonesian occupation is reported to have been brutal and repressive with as many as 100,000 Timorese killed. After the fall of Indonesia's ruler Suharto, East Timor declared its independence in 1999. Indonesian troops destroyed much of East Timor's infrastructure upon withdrawal.

Since independence, East Timor, now called Timor-Leste, has been far from stable. There was a violent uprising in 2006 and an attempted assassination of the President in 2008.

Relations Between the US and Timor-Leste

The main area of political cooperation between the US and Timor-Leste is international development. There is an American Embassy in Dili, Timor-Leste's capital. The US Agency for International Development has a sizable presence in Timor-Leste and is working to improve economic growth, health care, and democratic processes. Timor-Leste seeks to become a full member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Impressions of Timor-Leste

Despite being an island in the South Pacific, it seems surprisingly dry. The terrain is mountainous. The rainy season should be starting soon and everyone looks forward to it. It is in the mid-90s everyday. At least it's not brutally humid.

It is brutally poor. Timor is the poorest country in Asia. It's the first place I've been to that is like the films in 6th grade social studies. 50% of the people don't finish primary school. Life expectancy is 55-60. They have cattle in Timor but don't export meat because there is no slaughterhouse to process the meat. They don't export fruits to Australia because they don't have the proper fumigation system. My hotel room was a converted shipping container.

There are pockets of creature comforts in the capital city because of a very large UN community here. But there is very little indigenous wealth. The scuba diving here is purported to be world-class so there are some 5-star resorts in development. There are many foreigners running around here. TL is one of the world's newest countries, poor and post conflict. As a result, many international NGOs and other groups are here. There was violence here in 2006 and the UN basically took over the place. Many people have raised their standard of living by building service businesses supporting the UN. When the UN leaves, they are unsure what they will do.

In the country, the poverty is apparent. Barefoot children. Adults wearing donor T-shirts. Thatched huts. Subsistence farmers and fisherman. People hunting feral pigs and goats with machetes. (I saw three pigs on a sandbar out in the sea.) There is little employment in rural areas.

People are very nice. The Timorese I have encountered are quite bright and pleasant. Few speak English. Despite the economic conditions, people do not beg for money. They try to find work or sell things on the street.  Almost half the people in the country live in poverty as defined by the UN, less than 1 dollar per day. $3.50 per day is a good salary. A great deal of economic development work remains to be done.

President Obama at the IOC Meeting in Copenhagen (Olivier Morin/AFP/Getty)

Barack Obama invested a significant amount of time and political capital to plug his adopted hometown of Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics, even making a personal appearance at the International Olympic Committee (IOC) gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark. One of four finalists, Chicago was the first city to be eliminated by IOC voters despite the best efforts of the President and the First Lady, Michelle Obama. As the IOC chose Rio de Janeiro, onlookers in Chicago's Daley Plaza were in absolute shock at the turn of events.

Newscasters and talk show pundits have been expressing their opinion about how Obama's failure to bring home the Olympic bacon might affect his political standing in America. But what about overseas?

Has the Obama magic in the international community worn off? Will foreign leaders see him as less effective? Less persuasive? Probably not. The momentum for the first Olympics in a South American city was too strong, plus the IOC has a reputation for unusual voting.

At the same time of the Rio announcement, Iran agreed to additional IAEA inspections, and proposed to ship most of its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment, and then to France to be turned into fuel rods to power a Tehran reactor used for medical research. A win for Obama.

Obama will be fine abroad but maybe a little miffed he won't be able to watch the US men's basketball team capture Gold in his beloved Chicago.

See Also:

• Rio Wins Olympics 2016!
• The Olympics, As Always, Set To Make Big News
• Chicago Olympics - Fast Facts about the Bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

The Obama administration announced on September 17, 2009 that the United States was changing its European missile defense strategy. The previous plans were to base ground-based interceptor missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland in order to protect Europe from Iran and other dangerous regimes with medium- and long-range missile capabilities. The Bush plan infuriated the Russians and was discussed in detail at the Obama-Medvedev summit in Moscow in July 2009.

Why

President Obama explained that the change in policy was made after an updated intelligence assessment of Iran's capability to reach Europe with short and medium-range missiles. The President proposes a new approach to missile defense based on mobile radar and hundreds of missile interceptors. The Bush system consisted of a radar site in the Czech Republic and ten missile interceptor systems based in Poland. The new system of interceptors consists of three types of missiles:

• Patriot missiles, famous from Desert Storm, which defend a defined location;
• Aegis SM-3 interceptors which are sea-based missiles designed to provided theater-wide protection against medium and long-range missiles; and
• Large ground-based interceptors based in Alaska and California.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has emphasized that the United States was not scrapping missile defense but providing a better approach than proposed three years ago. The timing of the White House announcement comes days after the International Atomic Energy Agency's assessment that Iran is now capable of building a nuclear bomb, and five days in advance of President Obama's meeting with Russia's President Medvedev during the UN General Assembly Meetings in New York. The conventional thinking is that the President will be seeking Russia's assistance with terminating Iran's nuclear program including support for stronger sanctions against Iran as a quid pro quo for getting rid of the Bush missile defense program. Statements from Moscow praised the Obama announcement but were clear not to endorse sanctions against Iran.

Political Considerations

Political opposition in the US criticized the Administration's move as appeasement of the Russians. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said cancelling the program was a strategic mistake and "emboldens Russia and pulls the rug out from under our Polish and Czech Republic allies." Proponents of the new program argue that even more missile defense capability will be provided to Eastern Europe, and the Bush program would be ineffective in countering Iranian missiles. A US delegation conducted high-level talks in the Czech Republic and Poland on Thursday to discuss the matter. President Obama, seeking to diffuse criticism about appeasing Russia, explained that the new strategy is not about Russia but creating an approach to cope with current threats. He said he was acting on the unanimous recommendation of Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Right Move?

When trying to assess whether Obama's move is a good idea, here are some possible positive outcomes:

• Improved relations with Russia and enlisting their support in halting Iran's nuclear program.
• Support from Western European allies fearful of antagonizing Russia.
• US image-building immediately before the UN General Assembly Meetings.
• A more capable and more flexible missile defense program in Europe that reflects current realities.
• A potentially less expensive system emphasizing Patriot and Aegis missiles rather than ground-based interceptors proposed by the Bush Administration.

When thinking about the negative outcomes, they might be:

• Emboldening Russia to demand more if they receive what are perceived as unilateral concessions.
• Fear from Eastern European allies that the US commitment to their protection is "soft."
• Less cooperation from Iran and possibly other countries because of a perception that the West is even more divided than previously thought.

It would be surprising if the US did not receive a concession from Russia related to Iran or a different issue shortly after the meeting. With domestic political tensions running high and opponents labeling Obama as a socialist, it would be politically unwise to give something to Russia and "get nothing in return." There is likely another deal with Russia in the works.

See Also:

• Obama Scraps Plans for "Missile Defense Shield"
• What Is the Missile Defense Shield Controversy?
• New York Times: A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe by SecDef Robert Gates

General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US and NATO forces asked for more troops in Afghanistan. The current troop levels are 62,000 US soldiers and 35,000 Allied soldiers. The Pentagon plans to send 6000 more troops but McChrystal is expected to request for a significantly higher number.

The consensus is that the Taliban is strengthening, 48 US soldiers were killed in August 2009, and that no end to the war is in sight as fighting has spilled into Pakistan. President Obama has called for a "soup-to-nuts" evaluation of the Afghanistan strategy. Congress wants Generals McChrystal and David Petraeus, the US commander in the Middle East and Central Asia to testify publicly about their strategy. McChrystal says, "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

Key Question: Is a Surge the Right Call?

With the Afghan War at all-time low approval ratings in the US, Osama Bin Laden nowhere in sight, the Afghan Armed Forces not ready to defend the country and fraudulent elections, is an Iraq-like "troop surge" in Afghanistan the right call?

The strategy reevaluation may need to be more radical than raising troop levels. US leaders have repeatedly stated we cannot "kill our way to victory" in Afghanistan. The rationale for invading Afghanistan in 2001 was to punish Al-Qaeda and those responsible for the events of 9/11, and to preclude further attacks on American soil. Most of Al-Qaeda has fled Afghanistan and is stationed in Pakistan, a more geopolitically important country because of its nuclear weapons. To the point, does the current US strategy get the real bad guys?

So, the US remains in Afghanistan battling a hardened enemy that has repelled the Russians previously and had no previous quarrel with the United States prior to America's military intervention. While the Taliban represents fundamental Islam and is anti-democratic, there is no evidence that they support international terrorism. Yet America's attention has turned to the Taliban as the main enemy in Afghanistan.

Another Way

Now, the Government finds itself trying not to fail by supporting a fledgling democracy by military force against zealous opposition. Meanwhile Al-Qaeda has by and large moved on. Maybe the new strategy should go "out of the box" and forget about nation-building in Afghanistan and focus on eliminating terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden is among those calling for a "counter-terror" strategy focused on fighting Al-Qaeda.

In other words, the US would focus its efforts on destroying terrorist bases and training camps and eliminating known terrorists instead of protecting the existing Afghan Government and capturing territory from Taliban control. Winning the hearts and minds of Afghans would come through decreased violence, development aid and support for groups supporting pluralism and democracy.

This strategy could result in the fall of the Karzai government and greater gains by the Taliban but it could also result in a more directed fight against Al-Qaeda, additional resources for contingencies in Pakistan and welcome relief for the American military. When Generals McChrystal and Petraeus come to Washington, maybe they should contemplate a different definition of success.

See Also:

• Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategy
• Understanding Afghanistan: A Guide
• "Good War" No More in Afghanistan

By most accounts, the United States is supporter of free trade. Critics of the enormous trade deficit often point to unfair trade practices on the part of the Chinese or product subsidies by the Europeans. While there are exceptions like tobacco and agricultural products, America is relatively open to foreign goods.

Fair Trade

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama was careful to say he was an advocate of "fair trade" meaning that free trade should work for all people. He also campaigned that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed during the Clinton Administration was oversold to the American people and it might need to be fixed. After winning the Democratic nomination, Obama appeared to back off his criticism of NAFTA in preparation for his general election campaign against unabashed free trader John McCain.

Does Fair Trade Mean Protectionism?

In September 2009, President Obama raised eyebrows in Beijing when he ordered a three-year tariff hike on Chinese tires -- 35% in the first year. Chinese tire sales are soaring in the US while jobs at American tire manufacturers are shrinking. Opponents are claiming that the tariff increase was a "gift" to organized labor. China filed a complaint about the tariff with the World Trade Organization (WTO). During the same week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused the United States of blocking Russia's entry to the WTO. The economic stimulus package contains "Buy American" language and the bailout of GM and Chrysler is seen by some as Government support for US trade. All these events might cause White House watchers to ponder if the US is moving away from free trade.

Here Comes the "But..."

Before we call President Obama a protectionist, he has opposed trade penalties against countries that fail to meet carbon emissions targets and committed to overcome Congress' cancellation of a program enabling Mexican trucks to operate on US roads. The White House has also lifted a number of trade restrictions with Cuba. Plus, most of the Obama economic team would be categorized as "free-traders." Is US trade policy schizophrenic? Probably not. More likely, President Obama, neither an ardent free trader nor hard-line protectionist, is seeking to make trade deals that reflect his immediate political and economic objectives like normalizing relations with Cuba or ensuring the survival of US automakers. Once the economic recovery is well underway, we should have a better understanding if the White House's definition of fair trade is free trade.

See Also:

• Barack Obama and Trade - How Obama's Trade Policies Will Affect the U.S. Economy
• Obama Campaign Promises: The Economy for Middle-Class Americans
• Resources on Trade

Diplomatic protocol can be very tricky. Should you seat the ambassador of India ahead of the ambassador from China? Do you greet Roman Catholic cardinals before or after the governor of Guam? These things often seem silly to Americans who have spent many years perfecting the art of informality. But for much of the world, improper protocol signals disrespect. And the Obama Administration has recently been caught in some foreign relations protocol gaffes.

First was President Obama's meeting with United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The schedule was shuffled in a way that made the British feel they were being slighted. Then there was an awkward exchange of gifts where Prime Minister Brown brought some very impressive historical pieces and President Obama presented an uninspired group of 25 Hollywood DVDs. The Browns reportedly also brought nice clothes for the Obama children, while the Obamas sent a much less expensive model of Marine One to the Brown household.

Now when this happened, I was inclined to believe it was either a rookie mistake by the new White House or a calculated effort to distance the president from Prime Minister Brown since Brown is widely believed to be on his way out of office in Britain. But now a couple of other incidents make me worried that the problem is truly a lack of attention.

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had her first meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, she presented him with what was supposed to be a funny gift with a big message. She gave him a "reset" button because the United States has said it wants to "reset" the U.S.-Russian relationship. The button had the English word "reset" printed on it beside what was supposed to be the Russian word for reset. But it was the wrong Russian word.

Most recently, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also received some slipshod treatment. Keep in mind that Brazil is one of the fastest growing economies in the world with growing clout on the world stage. And President Lula (as he is know) is personally well-liked by world leaders across the board. But the White House bungled his schedule and then spelled his name wrong.

Writing for Foreign Policy.com about the Lula visit, Joshua Keating wrote:

I'm sure he'll feel better when he gets his DVDs. I know Obama's got bigger things to worry about, but there is a whole office of protocol that's supposed to take care of these things. If they can put together a Stevie Wonder concert, they should be able to arrange White House visits from the world's most important leaders with a little more class than this.