Nevertheless, more than two years after this proclamation, Guantánamo Bay is still operational, and the
Obama administration recently reversed its once forceful decision to terminate military tribunals. On March 7th, President Obama signed a new executive order reauthorizing military commissions, claiming that “all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation.” This policy reversal should be welcomed and supported since it provides the most judicious and fair way to prosecute captured terrorists while also placing the safety and security of American citizens above the bickering that characterizes international human rights politics. Both pragmatically and legally, President Obama has made the correct decision in reauthorizing military commissions at Guantánamo Bay.

One of the most commonly overlooked arguments in support of military commissions is actually quite simple: the federal judiciary system is ill equipped to handle trials of terrorist operatives. Federal courts have far stricter conditions for what can be considered “admissible evidence,” an unnecessary and unusual precedent for the prosecution of terrorists. Hearsay evidence, while admissible in military tribunals, European criminal courts, and international courts, is one of the most valuable pieces of evidence that interrogators can wean from captured terrorists, yet it is not admissible in US federal courts. While such a standard may be acceptable for domestic criminal trials where evidence is far more abundant, there are generally very few eyewitnesses willing to testify at hearings for suspected terrorists because they rightfully fear strong and terrible retribution. We only need to look as far as the frightening 9/11 footage to see that al-Qaeda has no issue ruthlessly and indiscriminately murdering innocent civilians.

Certainly, their retribution would be far greater against those who have actively worked to defy them.
Beyond this justifiable fear, however, most of the witnesses from whom we have obtained evidence are terrorists, leading to countless obstacles to get these witnesses to stand trial. Terrorists are obviously unwilling to testify publicly against fellow terrorists, yet it would be reckless not to provide hard evidence simply because the witness is unwilling to take the stand. Furthermore, many of these witnesses are harbored by or hiding in foreign countries, making the procurement of their testimony all the more difficult. Even if the governments of the Middle East were willing to aid us by extraditing the terrorist witnesses to the U.S. for trial, it is doubtful that they have the political will or the institutional strength to successfully find, capture, and transport these witnesses.

In addition to these logistical reasons, military tribunals are considered legal under the Geneva Conventions, a fact voiced often by President Bush and now, albeit somewhat reluctantly, accepted by President Obama. The legal issue surrounding military tribunals stems from the Third Geneva Convention, which grants prisoners of war (POWs) the right to habeas corpus, counsel of their own choosing, and the right to appeal a court’s decision. While under the current system of military tribunals none of these rights are conferred to the most dangerous terrorists, a close reading of the treaty reveals that the United States is actually not required to do so. According to the Third Geneva Convention, POWs are defined as “members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict” that carry their arms openly and have “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” Terrorists, who forgo uniforms and make concerted efforts to disguise themselves as civilians, do not fulfill these requirements and are therefore not granted the legal rights conferred to POWs. The United States is still bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to abstain from “cruel treatment and torture,” but certainly military tribunals could not be described as “torture” in any sense of the word.

While international treaties are legally binding, seeing as they are given status as “the Supreme law of the land,” they cannot require us to violate other portions of the Constitution. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has upheld military tribunals on multiple occasions, deeming them consistent with Constitutional war powers and legal precedent. In Ex parte Quirin, the Court unanimously upheld President Roosevelt’s decision to try eight self-proclaimed Nazi spies in military tribunals, one of whom was even an American citizen. In the decision, the Court ruled, “Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.” In 2004, the Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq (AUMF), which granted the President the right to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the 9/11 attacks, also authorized military tribunals while the United States was actively engaged in combat. The Court commented, “ . . . enemy combatant proceedings may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the Executive,” and they even went so far as to argue, “Hearsay, for example, may need to be accepted as the most reliable available evidence from the Government in such a proceeding.” As is evident by judicial precedent from the nation’s highest court, military tribunals are an acceptable, and oftentimes the most practical, procedure by which terrorists can be tried in a court of law. There is no legal reason, given the nature of terrorist operations and the strong precedent set in our judiciary, that terrorists should not be tried in military tribunals.

There are, however, other criticisms levied against military tribunals. Specifically, former detainees such as Majid Khan have argued that military tribunals encourage the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which constitute torture. Torture, in all of its forms, is illegal under both the Constitution and our obligations to the Geneva Accords, so its use cannot be tolerated in any circumstance. In fact, studies have shown that torturous coercion is a wholly ineffective interrogation technique because the victims will probably just admit to crimes they have never committed in order to please their interrogators. Furthermore, torture at home could feasibly endanger our troops abroad by enraging an already elusive and dangerous enemy. For these reasons alone, not even considering the strong moral implications, the United States should not engage in torture if it is to be effective in its obtainment of information from terrorists.

Both Guantánamo and their military tribunals are conducted in a humane manner Detainees at Guantánamo are granted exemplary health benefits and facilities—certainly better care than they would be receiving anywhere else in the world. While some would contend that Guantánamo as a concept is illegal and morally repugnant, we unfortunately live in an age where the rules of warfare have changed. To send these detainees back to their home countries would essentially be granting their release; it has been proven that Middle Eastern prisons, especially those in Yemen, are undeniably porous. As unfortunate as it may be, the nature of our enemy requires that we maintain their imprisonment, it is crucial that we do not allow for any risk of safety of Americans on the presumption that these terrorists will remain in captivity.

The United States, as a nation of sovereign people, has its greatest responsibility to protect and defend the citizens that grant it legitimacy and power. Military tribunals are a strong component of this defense because they allow the government to try terrorist operatives efficiently without imperiling the federal court system. Legally, there is little justification for those who oppose military tribunals, since the reckless and violent manner in which terrorists wage war has stripped them of their POW status under the Third Geneva Convention. Finally, U.S. constitutional law has upheld military tribunals as an effective means to try and convict guilty terrorist operatives while the United States is engaged in activity military combat as it is today. It should be of great comfort to all Americans that President Obama has reevaluated his campaign rhetoric to adopt these tribunals as a legitimate way to try to convict terrorists, thereby increasing the United States’ capacity to contain and eliminate one of the greatest threats to its national security.

One of the most prominent trouble spots in the global economy is Greece. The government’s massive and rapidly expanding debt burden has raised concerns that the nation might be forced to declare bankruptcy. In light of this danger, the US ought to take action to resolve Europe’s internal dilemma. It should push for measures to contain the crisis while preventing similar situations from arising elsewhere.

Greece’s default would be disastrous for the United States. It would threaten to reverse the nascent global economic recovery and work to destabilize the European Union. If Greece defaults on its loans, investors will likely lose confidence in other European countries with high debt ratios, raising borrowing rates to prohibitive levels. This would create a vicious cycle in which those countries would then find it much more difficult to finance debt, which could possibly trigger further default. Unfortunately, numerous obstacles exist to a potential EU-orchestrated bailout. There are legal and practical questions to deal with, as well as political considerations. Already, public officials in other EU nations, most notably Germany, have publicly voiced skepticism about whether to intervene in Greece, citing the high costs associated with such a step.

After several agonizing months of uncertainty, it seems as though most countries have emerged from the depths of the economic collapse that ensued following the 2008 financial panic. US GDP expanded by 5.7 percent in the third quarter of 2009, while Europe has witnessed slowing rates of decline, and in some cases, including Great Britain and France, even modest growth. The response undertaken during the crisis by Western leaders, most notably US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was extraordinary, combining bank bailouts with expansionary fiscal and monetary policies.

While these remedies appear to have succeeded to a degree, they came at an enormous cost; both the United States and Great Britain now face budget deficits in excess of 10 percent of GDP. If the economy enters what experts have dubbed a “double-dip” recession, in which the initial recovery is followed by a second downturn, it is unlikely that governments will be able to intervene on the same scale as they did during the initial phase of the crisis, owing to insufficient resources and public hostility. The US spent $800 billion on last year’s economic stimulus package while the Federal Reserve drove interest rates to record lows. Incurring more debt through, for example, another stimulus package would further risk the long-term financial stability of the United States. Thus, it is imperative that the United States and its allies maintain the current fragile, uneven recovery, or they will be doomed to suffer a protracted period of economic underperformance similar to Japan’s “Lost Decade.”

With so much depending on the revival of Western economies, any potential obstacle to the achievement of that goal must be removed. Greek insolvency would not only bring its own economy to a grinding halt, but could also have a domino effect. Many other members of the European Union, including Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland, are also coping with excessive debt levels incurred by rampant spending over the past decade and sharp drops in revenue owing to the recession. In spite of EU rules requiring that budget deficits not exceed 3 percent of GDP, the lack of any effective enforcement mechanism, combined with “creative accounting,” has allowed profligacy to go unpunished. Already, confidence in the Euro has plummeted, causing its relative value to drop. Concern about the future of the common market could lead Eastern European nations, such Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, to rethink their planned entry into the Euro Zone, while strengthening the appeal of “Euroskepticism.” Critics of the Euro have long argued that a monetary union would lead to this kind of a crisis; now, their warnings appear to be vindicated.

A weakened EU is not an outcome that would be favorable for the United States. Although American and European politicians have their differences on some issues, a strong, unified Europe is in the United States’ best interest. As the US combats the complex and pressing questions of international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses, trade negotiations, Third World poverty, and environmental degradation, it is important to have a partner capable of assisting in its effort to provide global leadership. A weak and divided Europe cannot fulfill this role if it is plagued by economic disunity and decline.

To this end, the United States ought to play an active part in preventing Greek default. It should lean heavily on France and Germany, the EU’s economic powerhouses, to orchestrate a bailout that includes strict austerity conditions, cutting spending and raising interest rates, along the lines of International Monetary Fund standards. A major US diplomatic campaign, with the active involvement of President Obama, can display the vitality of this issue. Greece needs more than a band-aid solution; it needs a complete overhaul of its economic system. For years, Greece has run deficits well above EU limits. Rampant corruption and wasteful spending have brought the country to its current juncture. Even today, in the midst of the crisis, intransigent public sector unions have organized street protests in Athens and elsewhere, demanding immunity from the severe repercussions of fiscal austerity.

Critics contend that past interventions that imposed austerity have had disastrous consequences. While this did occur in the short term in some cases, such as the Asian economic crisis of 1998, in the long run, budgetary restraint is the only way to set countries on the path toward sustainable growth, as opposed to a temporary expansion followed by yet another crisis. Countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea, all of which accepted IMF loans in the late 1990s, rooted out corporate mismanagement and other practices that inhibited productivity, and the result was protracted economic expansion over the course of the past decade.

Like the countries of East Asia, Greece cannot be given a bailout without strings attached because it will create a problem of moral hazard, allowing Spain, Italy, and Portugal to continue their prodigal ways in hopes that they too will be protected. Instead, they should be following the example of Ireland, which in recent months has introduced tough reforms designed to control its budget deficit, including sharp pay cuts for civil servants. Although controversial, these measures have been largely accepted by the Irish public, as they acknowledge that the short-term pain of austerity is preferable to continued financial turmoil. Hopefully Greece will demonstrate a comparable degree of responsibility in dealing with its dire financial situation.

US involvement is crucial to ensuring that a rescue package is formulated and organized according to the principles of austerity. France and Germany are hesitant to offer assistance, but could be persuaded if the United States emphasizes the importance of the Greek situation to the global recovery and the perils of allowing the crisis to spread. Such an approach will reap vast rewards for the US and its allies in the form of increased economic growth and greater geopolitical stability. For these reasons, President Obama ought to make securing aid for Greece a top priority.

There are those who argue the Copenhagen Accord did produce notable victories. Indeed, the accord does acknowledge the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change, state that cuts should be made “with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius,” and agree to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to climate change and reduce deforestation. It also calls for further negotiations to set targets for emissions reduction and develop the details of implementation.
A majority of environmentalists, however, view the accord as fatally insufficient: Its statements of principle are commendable, but it suffers from fundamental deficiencies that are likely to render it ineffectual. In addition, historical precedent does not bode well for the widely celebrated pledge to raise funds for climate change adaptation in developing nations. In 2005, the G8 pledged to increase annual aid funds to all developing countries to $50 billion by 2010 with half of these funds designated for Africa. What became of this commitment? In 2009, the UN reported that the G8 needed to increase total aid spending by $29.3 billion and increase African aid by $20.6 billion to reach the original 2010 target. This once lauded pledge remains an empty promise, and there is no reason to believe that the Copenhagen aid commitment will meet a different fate.

In addition, the weaknesses of the Copenhagen Accord will stifle emission-targeting legislation in the U.S. The two major objections offered by opponents of the “cap-and-trade” emissions reduction bill passed by the House of Representatives this past July centered on expanding economies, and both are certain to reappear if the bill progresses to the Senate. At the time, a press release from the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated, “Even supporters of the national energy tax concede that unilateral American action will do nothing to improve Earth’s environment unless global competitors like China and India curb their emissions, too.” While the U.S., the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, could certainly have a significant effect on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, rapid emission increases in developing countries do pose a significant challenge to mitigating climate change. The failure of the Copenhagen Accord to set global emission targets has weakened proponents of climate change legislation in the U.S.

Additionally, “cap-and-trade” opponents argue, with some validity, that American businesses will be harmed unless other nations make similar commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Rep. Boehner’s press release objects that climate change legislation “will impose tough new requirements and increased costs on American manufacturers.” The release goes on to state that these costs will affect American jobs in one of two ways: “Either domestic manufacturers will move overseas directly, or American companies in energy-intensive industries will be driven out of business by overseas rivals that undercut their prices.” It is accurate that American businesses would be harmed by bearing the costs of buying carbon credits or paying carbon taxes while their foreign competitors enjoy a cheap supply of coal-generated electricity. In this regard then, the Copenhagen Accord does nothing to assuage the concerns of senators worried about the economic consequences of climate change legislation.

Perhaps most importantly, the conference demonstrated the serious problems plaguing the current UN climate change negotiation framework, and highlighted the difficulties the U.S. will face in attempting to lead the development of climate change legislation. The developing countries who comprise the Group of 77 threatened to walk out of the conference after stating that they were being treated unfairly in the negotiations. Furthermore, the conference was on the verge of complete failure until President Obama met with leaders from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa to craft the accord that was then presented to other nations on a take-it-or-leave it basis. The sharp divisions between developed and developing countries, and the fact that nations could only come to agreement through smaller, more isolated negotiations, raises serious questions about whether all-inclusive U.N. negotiations can ever establish meaningful emissions targets.

Although the United States did, in some respects, emerge from Copenhagen as a global leader on climate change, the more important development was the global realization that the U.S. is unlikely to be the nation that will determine the future course of climate change negotiations. Instead, it seems China and India, representing the developing Group of 77, will be the determinants of climate change legislation progress. India and China signed a five-year memo of understanding in October to present a united front in climate change talks, and they were the two primary players in directing the pace of negotiations in Copenhagen.

Unfortunately, the ascendancy of China and India does not bode well for those with a firm commitment to preventing climate change. Both nations prioritize economic growth above all else, and refuse to commit to restrictive emissions targets that could impede their rapid economic expansion. China and India will probably hamper efforts to produce a strong international commitment to preventing climate change; it seems likely that future international climate treaties will be severely limited by the recalcitrance of large developing nations eager to raise the living standards of their citizens, despite the increasing costs of substantial greenhouse gas emissions on everyone else.

The Copenhagen Accord contains admirable sentiments, but in itself does nothing to prevent climate change. The future of climate change prevention rests with further negotiations, and unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly evident that those nations likely to be most influential are those least likely to support meaningful emissions limits. At the same time, Copenhagen’s failure has made it less likely that the U.S. will make a serious commitment to reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. The prospects for a serious global agreement on climate change mitigation are dim, and national governments may not substantially cooperate until they recognize the serious economic and ecological damage climate change could cause. They must also recognize the substantial economic benefits the development and expansion of “green” industries could bring. Hopefully, this day will not come too late.

Currently, the U.S. has no formal diplomatic ties with Cuba and has maintained an embargo that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to do business in the country. Although Fidel Castro’s abdication of power in 2006 precipitated shifts in the Cuban power structure that offered the possibility of a gradual thaw in relations, lingering Cold War antagonisms have precluded these possibilities from maturing into real change.

The Obama administration’s Cuba policy has thus far been a mix of inspiring first steps and disappointing stubbornness. In the weeks surrounding the Summit of the Americas, rapprochement looked like a real possibility. President Obama told leaders at the Summit that “the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled in overcoming decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.” Since then, however, U.S.-Cuban relations have frozen. After finally removing restrictions on Cuban-Americans’ ability to visit family on the island and send remittances, as well as permitting telecommunication companies to provide cell phone service in Cuba, the White House has disappointingly outlined a “tit-for-tat” approach to further rapprochement. Referring to Cuban leaders, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that in order to see more benefits from the U.S., “They’re certainly free to release political prisoners. They’re certainly free to stop skimming money off the top of remittance payments as they come back to the Cuban island. They’re free to institute a greater freedom of the press.” From the Cuban perspective, such reforms would dwarf the concessions the U.S. has offered; issuing token economic reforms and demanding massive political change is not the way to win the trust of leaders in Cuba, or anywhere else in Latin America for that matter.

Despite tensions, improved relations with Cuba are consistent with U.S. interests. Economically, Cuba represents an untapped and desirable trading partner. In an early December lecture at Princeton University, Cuba scholar Julia Sweig hypothesized that, were it not for the American embargo, Cuba could follow Vietnam’s developmental model, and gradually expand its economy through the growth of export markets. This would be of direct benefit to the U.S. economy.

Even more important than encouraging domestic change on the island, rapprochement with Cuba stands to improve U.S. diplomatic relations with all of Latin America. At last year’s Summit of the Americas, leaders from around the region, including relative moderate Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina, berated the U.S. for an “anachronistic” approach to Cuba. America’s insistence on antagonizing the Cuban government undercuts more important regional goals, specifically efforts to demonstrate that U.S. hemispheric hegemony need no longer be consistent with demanding, heavy-handed political relationships. Given the national significance of trade with Latin America, and the need for regional cooperation on issues like the drug trade, undocumented migrations, and human trafficking, the distrust motivated by the U.S. stance towards Cuba is a serious detriment to hemispheric policy. The lessening of hostilities towards Cuba could do much to assist the pursuit of other regional goals.

In this context, the emphasis the TSA recently placed on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism was misguided. The 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism admit that “Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world.” Current justification for Cuba’s inclusion seems based on its harboring of Euskadi Ta Askatasuna in Spain, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the National Liberation Army of Colombia, although the Country Reports acknowledge that some individuals visited Cuba in connection with peace negotiations with the governments of Spain and Colombia. The Cuban government has also admitted U.S. fugitives from groups like the Boricua Popular (or Macheteros) and the Black Liberation Army, but the Reports concede that in accordance with the government’s public declarations, Cuba has not granted protection to any new fugitives since 2006.

Given that ongoing Cuban activity does not appear to threaten the U.S., its position on the list of state sponsors of terror is clearly anachronistic. Removing Cuba from the list would not cost the U.S. anything, nor would it represent significant backtracking on the U.S. commitment to political and economic freedoms. It would, however, be a powerful signal to Cubans and other Latin American observers that the U.S. does in fact want to move past the Cold War framework of U.S.-Latin American relations. The removal, while individually insufficient to ease U.S.-Cuban antagonism, would be an important first step in that direction. Until President Obama updates the list accordingly, it is unlikely that Latin American governments will take seriously his overtures for a new era of inter-American relations.

In some sense, the state dinner was nothing new; past U.S. presidents have regularly hosted Indian leaders at state dinners. Indeed, in terms of policy substance, the Obama-Singh event is less important than Singh’s dinner with former President Bush in 2005, when they announced a civilian nuclear agreement between the two states. Nevertheless, the state dinner helped allay fears that the Obama administration might deprioritize relations with India in favor of strengthening ties with China. Despite the administration’s globetrotting agendas, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bypassed India on her trip to Asia in February 2009, and Obama, too, declined to visit during his Asian tour en route to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Singapore in November. Although Clinton did visit India earlier in July, the Obama administration seems to interact with India within a more bilateral framework than one in which they acknowledge its rising power and aspirations on the global stage.

New Delhi has been fretting over the U.S.’s apparent acquiescence to growing Chinese clout and in particular, the recent joint Obama-Hu statement calling for closer “cooperation [between the U.S. and China] on issues related to South Asia.” The statement seemed to open the door to China’s involvement in the longstanding sensitive rivalry between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, the ongoing economic downturn has fueled protectionist tendencies in America, especially with a Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama recently spoke of anti-outsourcing measures and criticized current tax policies which favor companies outsourcing to lower-cost countries like India. Hence some political watchers are predicting some strain in U.S.-India relations on Obama’s watch.

Officials such as U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns and Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake have nonetheless firmly reiterated America’s commitment to a partnership with India. Prime Minister Singh’s status as the first state guest of honor can be seen as a reaffirmation of the continued strength of U.S.-India ties and a strategic move by the White House to reassure their nervous Indian friends. The pageantry of a state dinner cannot, however, be a replacement for progress toward substantive issues. The Obama administration has been dragging its heels in the implementation of the much-heralded nuclear cooperation agreement, with the President showing little inclination to push through the final modalities and procedures.

Obama is right to engage more closely with China, but sticking too closely to a G2-style “Chimerica” script would risk overemphasizing Chinese influence at the expense of American leverage. China and America are more often than not at loggerheads with each other, from China’s resentment over its past subjugation under Western imperial powers to present-day tensions over Taiwan, Tibet, yuan undervaluation, and ideological differences over human rights and democracy. If Obama realistically wants to realize his grand visions of multilateralism and global cooperation, he needs as many allies on board as possible. An increasingly aggressive and confident China is an unlikely first candidate.

India can serve as a useful counterweight to China’s assertive and occasionally hostile presence in Asia that ensures that the much-touted ‘Asian century’ does not belong exclusively to the Chinese. While it would be overly simplistic to claim that India and the U.S.’s shared traits of being populous multiethnic democracies automatically renders easy cooperation, the fact that India is more likely to have a similar outlook as the U.S. can ease Western fears of a potentially unfriendly Asia-Pacific region based on Chinese-driven values and models. The U.S. should not try to forcefully impose American ideas on Asia, but with India as an ally the U.S. can ensure that its interests in Asia are not compromised. Most of the Southeast Asian countries, being poor and relatively small, are highly susceptible to China’s “checkbook diplomacy”—using its wealth to buy allies. For the U.S., India’s partnership may be more important than its partnership with Japan, as that country, a traditionally staunch U.S. ally, becomes increasingly distant from the U.S. after the recent shift in power to the Democratic Party of Japan under Yukio Hatoyama. India is also keen to work with the U.S. as protection against China. Supporting India’s emergence as a major power need not constitute an antagonistic containment strategy directed against any supposed “China threat.” Instead, it is a reasonable policy designed to ensure that the interests of all players are accommodated to preserve geopolitical stability and inclusiveness in a crucial region of the world.

The U.S. has to make sure it recognizes India’s interests while balancing its own agenda. Unfortunately, relations have been soured by India’s frustrations with America’s perceived reluctance to strongly crack down on Pakistan, which harbors several extremist groups that have targeted India. India is suspicious of ramped-up American military assistance to its neighbor, fearing that Pakistan will channel those resources toward aggression in the disputed Kashmir region and along the Indo-Pakistan border, rather than toward combating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Obama also flamed controversy early in 2009 when he suggested that resolving the Kashmir dispute would be central to addressing the problems of instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. South Asian politics have long proven to be complex and messy, and tensions have become even more strained in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai bombings by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT). Washington needs to balance its interests in working with both India and Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan, all crucial fronts in the battle against terrorism. During the state dinner, Obama wisely adopted a policy of non-involvement, issuing a neutral statement that “it is not [America’s] place” to get involved in the India-Pakistan conflict. Pakistan and India are partners that the U.S. can ill afford to lose; Washington should tread carefully.

Although the two nations have been increasingly close partners, there remains much potential for closer cooperation on counterterrorism efforts, particularly in the realms of intelligence sharing, joint training, improved institutional frameworks, and enhanced security enforcement measures and responses. India’s previous successful efforts against Sikh terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s were due in no small part to the sharing of intelligence with the U.S. and other countries, and a similar approach may be adopted with regard to global terrorism today. While terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) do have different objectives, they all cause conflict beyond Pakistan’s borders. A U.S.-India partnership in combating terrorism would underline India’s leadership both regionally and globally and would highlight international commitment to stopping terrorism and increasing stability.

Although President Obama’s ceremony and symbolic gestures are well-intentioned, building a stronger partnership with India will require further action. While China must be considered, the U.S. must engage more deeply with India on the many issues and interests that the two nations share to glean the potential economic and strategic rewards.

Although Obama’s “new era of responsibility” has found many supporters, its vagueness has also created an opening for critics who view Obama as a better speaker than policymaker. The reality of the President’s spirit of international good will lends credence to such critics. While some of his popularity is certainly attributable to his rhetoric, the bulk of it is due to the basic phenomenon that other nations expect him to pursue policies in their own self-interest.

There is no more fitting example of this disconcerting fact than the difference between President Obama’s popularity in the Middle East and President Bush’s at the end of his second term in office. The president’s tone of cooperation and reconciliation with Arab states has led to higher support in states such as Egypt, where approval for the U.S. increased from 22 to 27 percent, and in Jordan, where it rose from 19 to 25 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet support for America remains unchanged in areas such as the Palestinian territories and Pakistan, which have historically maintained distant relations with the United States throughout the terms of many presidents. Such opinions are unlikely to change despite President Obama’s election and new tone towards some Arab states. In Israel, on the other hand, America’s popularity has dropped from 78 percent in 2007 to 71 percent in 2009. This is attributable to several of President Obama’s statements and policies, both during his campaign and in office, that indicate he may be less willing to support all Israeli policies unconditionally than was the Bush administration. Obama’s speech in Cairo during the summer of 2009 and his insistence on the cessation of all settlement building have instilled doubts among Israelis that he will be as accommodating as his predecessor. Nor, for that matter, should he be; the region requires a mediator who will be unafraid to demand the termination of both Israeli settlement expansion and of many Arab countries’ funding and harboring of Islamist groups that wish to disrupt the peace process within the region.

The President may soon find that in other regions, as well as the Middle East, his political capital is based primarily on what foreign nations perceive as his commitment to their own best interests, rather than those of the global community. Many see Europe as the base of the President’s international support, an idea traced to then-senator Obama’s campaign foray into Germany the summer before he was elected. At the same time, Obama’s visit to Europe revealed that he is well aware of the true factors that lie at the root of his international support. In a speech, Obama appealed to the nation’s individual needs in articulating his political vision, saying, “The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin.” In this way, President Obama captured the essence of a more effective manner in which to leverage his extraordinary popularity: He appealed to individual nations’ self-interest in a way that gains their respect and helps Washington’s cause as well.

The President should stop focusing on maintaining his popularity as an end in and of itself and start making substantive policy decisions even if they disappoint some members of the international community. The recent Copenhagen Climate Summit in December of 2009 represents a perfect example of the way in which President Obama’s wish to satisfy all members of the international community led to intangible progress toward policy goals. Widely regarded as what the EU termed a “great failure,” the Climate Summit ended in various participants reaching a nonbinding political agreement that advocated emissions cuts and other environmental reforms at standards far below those hoped for by environmental experts. At the end of the conference, who was to blame for what and why—with the EU unhappy with China and China unhappy with the U.S.—was more publicized than the conference’s actual accomplishments. The idea of gathering any number of nations into a room and hoping that America’s newfound popularity in the world will inspire cooperation apparently has its limits.

Some might argue that President Obama, by brushing aside international criticism, puts himself in danger of falling into the same trap as the previous administration. Yet in doing so, one assumes that President Obama and the previous administration have a similar attitude toward foreign relations. They do not. President Bush treated the idea of diplomacy as a one-dimensional spectrum, expecting support for his forays into Iraq and Afghanistan while disregarding recommendations made by the United Nations and other international organizations. Yet President Obama has demonstrated a vision of the world in which the global community has substantial importance at various levels; he is familiar with international relations and cites Cold War diplomats George Marshall and George Kennan, supporters of a multilateral foreign policy, as sources of influence. The President embodies a combination of intellectual idealism and pragmatism that distinguish him ideologically from his predecessor.

It is clear that both Europe and the Obama administration share a spirit of cooperation and dialogue. But, to quote former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, “America does not have friends; it has interests.” President Obama will inevitably have to make tough decisions that will alienate global citizens whose support he once enjoyed. In order for President Obama to gain the respect he lacks as a relatively inexperienced leader, he must be willing make such decisions publicly and forcefully, or face appearing subservient to the political desires of other countries. As President Obama enters into his second year in office, his popularity is dampened but not expired; he still enjoys a fairly clean slate regarding foreign policy as a whole and has maintained a great deal of his international popularity. He can use this advantage as an opportunity to address more contentious issues and gain the respect—not just the popularity—of the international community.

In announcing the cancellation of the Eastern European missile defense installations, the Obama administration emphasized that it was not abandoning European missile defense entirely, but was instead pursuing an alternative strategy to more effectively address current threats. Long-range missile interceptors are unreliable and frequently ineffective, and neither Iran nor North Korea appears to be close to developing the long-range missiles the cancelled system would have been designed to intercept. Iran instead possesses short- and medium-range missiles that could pose a threat to Israel and parts of Europe, while North Korea’s current technology poses no threat to Europe. To protect Europe and Israel from any potential strikes by short- and medium-range Iranian missiles, the Obama administration’s new plan will use ship-based missile interceptors and an installation of small ground-to-air missiles in Poland.

If the diplomatic ramifications of abandoning the Bush-era missile defense plans are ignored, the administration’s new strategy is logically sound. New installations in Europe are not necessary for improving and testing the currently unreliable technology for intercepting long-range missiles. In addition, constructing, maintaining, and manning the missile defense sites in Europe would impose a financial burden on the United States for the sake of providing unreliable protection against a threat that does not currently exist. Building missile defense sites now would ensure that the United States would be ready if and when North Korea and Iran develop long-range missiles, but intelligence reports should give the United States enough advance warning to prepare for such an occurrence. The canceled long-range interceptor sites also failed to address the danger of the technology that Iran currently possesses, so the addition of new capabilities to the missile defense system is commendable.

In spite of these pragmatic arguments for an adjustment in European missile defense strategy, the United States’ new strategy is short-sighted and ignores the broader diplomatic implications of canceling the planned installations. Poland and the Czech Republic, NATO allies of the U.S., hoped that American military installations in their nations would deter Russian aggression in the region. Their desire to secure a material American commitment beyond a treaty obligation is reasonable, particularly in light of the Russian military occupation of territory in Georgia little more than a year ago. Although a Russian attack on a NATO member seems very unlikely in the foreseeable future, Poland and the Czech Republic are rightly concerned with checking the expansion of Russian influence in the region.

Conversely, one might argue that cancelling the missile defense sites reduces the need for Russia to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, thereby giving Poland and the Czech Republic less reason to fear Russian encroachment in Eastern Europe. This analysis assumes that Russia is seeking a fixed amount of influence with which it will be satisfied attaining—a thesis with little supporting evidence. Russia’s recent foreign policy has been characterized by an aggressive pursuit of power; actions such as gas shutoffs to Ukraine and the armed incursion into Georgia give no indication that Russian leaders will be content with some particular amount of regional influence.

More broadly, the Obama administration’s new missile defense strategy raises questions about the credibility of American commitments in Europe and around the globe. It signals to other nations the United States’ willingness to change policy in pursuit of its own interests, and indicates that American commitments may weaken with changes in administration. While the Obama plan to include smaller interceptors in Poland may assuage Polish concerns to some degree, it remains to be seen if the shift in missile defense policy will make other nations more skeptical of American commitments and less likely to enter into defense agreements.

One could argue that revising missile defense policy presented an opportunity for the United States to improve diplomatic relations with Russia and increase the odds of Russian cooperation on other issues, such as sanctions against Iran or supply lines into Afghanistan. But the Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its missile defense decision was completely unrelated to U.S.-Russian relations, and there is no evidence that the United States has received any concessions from Russia in return. Clearly, an open agreement between America and Russia on abandoning missile defense in exchange for Russian concessions would have carried high diplomatic penalties for both states. Alternatively, it would have been naïve of the administration to change its missile defense strategy and simply hope for a future Russian concession in return. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev did say, “if our partners hear some of our concerns, we will, of course, be more attentive to theirs.” This supposed attention to American concerns is unlikely to produce actual policy results, however, given Russia’s aggressive foreign policy stance. Simply put, there is no evidence that realigning missile defense policy has motivated Russia to change its positions on issues important to the United States.

From a purely military standpoint, the decision to immediately implement missile defenses against short and medium-range missiles is a good strategic outcome. Unfortunately, the decision to simultaneously abandon slower-developing plans for long-range missile defenses was a diplomatic misstep. Abandoning the originally planned sites in Poland and the Czech Republic has not only harmed relations with these NATO allies, but may also make other nations skeptical of American commitments and hesitant to reach agreements with the United States. Moreover, the realignment may reduce the number of complaints from the Kremlin, but is unlikely to help secure any real diplomatic concessions from Russia. Ultimately, the Obama administration’s decision to discontinue the Bush administration’s missile defense program damaged American diplomatic credibility without producing any benefits for the United States.

Examining the history of America’s interaction with the rest of the world provides context for the actions of the Obama administration. Hand wringing about America’s image abroad dates back to at least the 1960s, and has intensified in recent decades. Cold War era conflicts, such as the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race, drew massive protests in Europe. In the aftermath of the downfall of the Soviet Union, observers derided the U.S. as a “hyperpower,” a critique that encompassed not only America’s political moves, but also its economic and cultural might in an increasingly globalized, unipolar world.

Tensions between the U.S. and its traditional allies mounted in 2002 when Bush announced his intention to invade Iraq, a campaign he planned to launch unilaterally once the UN refused to endorse it. European leaders, most prominently Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, denounced America’s behavior as aggressive, echoing a sentiment expressed by an overwhelming majority of European citizens.

Yet, as in the past, America’s partners maintained a schizophrenic attitude toward their benefactor. For all its faults, America offered protection for European countries that had largely demilitarized in the years since World War II. Hence, whenever an outside threat appeared on the horizon, all talk of a post-American world suddenly vanished, and the transatlantic alliance appeared to be just as strong as ever. This was the case in the summer of 2008, when Russia’s invasion of Georgia inspired fear in the hearts of European publics. In response, their leaders quickly modified their stance to reflect closer alignment with the U.S. on issues such as missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Even as America saw its ratings decline under Bush in what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dubbed “old Europe,” the story was different elsewhere. The U.S. continued to enjoy favorable relations with the countries of the former Soviet bloc, who still remain thankful to the U.S. for defeating their former communist oppressors. Several Eastern European nations, most prominently Poland, contributed troops to the U.S. mission in Iraq. Ties with rising powers in Asia, such as India and Japan, improved on Bush’s watch, as demonstrated by a series of joint military exercises as well as a landmark nuclear treaty with India. These bonds appear likely to remain strong even with the recent election of the Democratic Party of Japan, which has occasionally indulged in anti-American rhetoric, but has also announced a commitment of $5 billion for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a critical U.S. priority. Humanitarian aid to areas afflicted by poverty, disease, and natural disaster won plaudits among the President’s harshest critics. In Latin America, where populist politicians like Hugo Chavez gained ground throughout the past decade, local issues such as income disparity far outweighed the role of anti-American grandstanding in determining their success.

As has been established, America was by no means universally unpopular on the eve of President Obama’s inauguration. Nevertheless, during the campaign, Obama frequently sounded the theme of America’s deteriorating reputation abroad. To indicate that reversing anti-American sentiment was one of his top priorities, he sought to portray himself as a global citizen in a way that is perhaps unprecedented in American history: by emphasizing his multicultural background. He addressed an enormous, cheering crowd in Berlin during a tour of Europe and the Middle East in July 2008, and met with foreign leaders who demonstrated their eagerness to work with him.

The contrast between Obama and Bush became immediately apparently in the first few months of Obama’s presidency, as he began to overturn policies that, in the past, have incited denunciation of the U.S. Fulfilling a campaign promise, he issued an executive order mandating that the Guantanamo Bay prison be closed within a year, a directive that later ran into logistical problems. He renounced the use of torture against terrorist suspects. In speeches to foreign nations, he extended his criticisms of America to include unsavory elements of its history, such as mistreatment of immigrants and minority groups, and heavy-handed interventionism during the Cold War.

All of these measures represented an attempt to “reset” America’s relations with the rest of the world. Various missteps, however, have tarnished that campaign. Obama was criticized for being deliberately rude to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, one of America’s closest allies, during Brown’s visit to Washington. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Obama’s goal of achieving peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been set back by his frosty relations with hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has refused Obama’s demand to halt settlements in the West Bank.

Discontent with Obama’s foreign agenda has grown in recent months. An article in the German publication Der Spiegel noted that his new approach to international relations has not worked. European powers remain reluctant to provide significant military support for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. French President Nicholas Sarkozy has been particularly adamant in criticizing Obama’s perceived weakness in negotiations with Iran, whose pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the entire world. China and Russia both continue to exercise their influence as regional powers, and have largely ignored the outreach undertaken by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

How can Obama reverse course in his quest to revitalize America’s image? To begin, he should seize every possible opportunity to find common ground with America’s allies on issues such as human rights. When he decided against meeting with the Dalai Llama in October, the President aroused suspicions that he would not be as sympathetic to human rights concerns as his predecessors, all of who met with the exiled Tibetan leader during their administrations. His endorsement of the so-called “Green Revolution” in Iran, in which citizens took to the streets to protest the fraudulent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was seen as less than enthusiastic. In this matter, he should take the advice offered by Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel—“never let a crisis go to waste”—and apply this doctrine to international affairs. Renewing Bush’s emphasis on development and democracy promotion could also help to reinforce the notion that America is a benevolent hegemon.

Trade is another area in which Obama could positively impact both America’s image and interests. Here, he has backpedaled from Bush’s pro-free-trade stance, imposing tariffs on Chinese tires, inserting “Buy American” provisions into the stimulus bill and the “Cash For Clunkers” program, and allowing agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to languish in the Senate. Such actions hurt the odds of resurrecting the Doha Round of international trade negotiations, which broke down last year. Ever since the end of World War II, removing barriers to global commerce has been a key goal of the U.S. and its allies. Free trade not only contributes to long-term economic growth, but it also ensures closer ties between nations, and thus reduces the possibility of conflict. If Obama were to repudiate his previous positions and commit to reviving the Doha Round, he would remind the world that America is capable of providing global leadership on these sorts of seemingly intractable problems.

But ultimately, Obama must acknowledge that America’s image is a compilation of so many factors, most of them out of his control, that changing it within a short span of time would be an impossible task. Indeed, on some issues, seeking international approval could be detrimental to America’s best interests. Anti-terrorism policy is one example. Measures that have drawn the ire of foreign leaders, including harsh interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, and detention facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, are also an important line of defense against future attacks.

The best route to follow lies between the extremes of the Bush era and the early months of the Obama presidency. America’s allies have a lot to offer in the way of diplomatic support and international prestige, and can lend legitimacy to its military ventures. They should not be ignored or marginalized. At the same time, their true concern is security, and if America can no longer ensure their safety, Europeans and others will look elsewhere for protection. Obama needs to balance conciliation with displays of toughness, while employing his personal appeal to rally support for shared causes such as human rights and nuclear non-proliferation. If he takes these steps, he will be able to cultivate increased respect for America abroad without sacrificing its interests.

Today, the United States has an opportunity to take action and redefine its Central and South American policy through its response to the ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. By conditionally acknowledging the new Honduran election and punishing the Honduran military for its actions, the United States can defuse a dangerous situation without evoking the legacy of American imperialism.

Although Honduras has had a peaceful democracy for years, it remains haunted by the ghost of the Cold War. During the 1980’s, the United States used Honduras as a staging ground in its efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Washington’s footprint remained even after the Cold War ended. Up until the Zelaya coup, the United States was still providing hefty military assistance to Honduras, the most recent package totaling $16.5 million. Despite Washington’s support, Honduras has remained one of Central America’s poorest countries. Out of an estimated 8 million Hondurans, more than a third live on less than $2 a day.

Many commentators saw President Zelaya’s election in 2005 as a revolt against the oligarchy that still controls much of the country. Zelaya represented the interests of unions and the working class and developed ties to other leftist leaders, including Hugo Chavez and Raúl Castro. He made Honduras a member of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, a purported alternative to free trade deals which has been promoted by Venezuela and Cuba. Predictably, many Hondurans, especially members of the armed forces, felt that the President went too far in his left-leaning tendencies. Zelaya’s attempt to modify the constitution so that he could run for an additional term, a page lifted from Chavez’s book, was the final straw for the conservative establishment. Before long, Zelaya was ousted from power by the military under accusations of an unconstitutional power grab.

If anything was undemocratic, though, it was the expulsion of the Zelaya administration. In the early hours of June 28th, soldiers stormed the presidential palace, kidnapped the President, took his cell phone, and flew him out of the country. He eventually arrived in Costa Rica, where, still in his pajamas, he angrily protested the coup. After a failed attempt to fly back into Honduras, President Zelaya managed to secretly re-enter the country and is currently residing in the Brazilian embassy.

An international coalition swiftly emerged to oppose the coup, making old enemies into bedfellows. The United States and Cuba were in agreement that Mr. Zelaya was wrongfully removed from power. The UN and the Organization of American States issued warnings to the new Honduran administration. The Obama administration vocally supported a power-sharing agreement, the San Jose Accords, which would have returned President Zelaya to power before the November election. A deal was eventually made, but it fell through shortly after being finalized. Unsurprisingly, this unity of opinion was short lived. The Honduran election that took place on November 29th exposed rifts in the international coalition that insisted on Zelaya’s reinstatement. The United States recognized the results of the election of conservative candidate Porfiro Lobo, but only Colombia and a few smaller states have followed suit. Other powers with significant regional influence, namely Spain and Brazil, refuse to recognize the results and demand that Zelaya be returned to his post.

The decision to recognize the November election could compromise the United State’s legitimacy if not handled correctly. As recently as September, the Obama administration was threatening to reject any vote held without first returning Zelaya to power. Now that the U.S. has reversed course, Obama must maintain his calls for a congressional vote to reinstate Zelaya or risk looking the fool. If the administration unconditionally recognizes the vote and fails to punish the people responsible for the coup, it could look like Washington is offering tacit approval for the Honduran military’s actions. This would smack of American imperialism and remind many of past U.S. support for the ousting of leftist leaders. Therefore, President Obama should go through with recognizing the election, but only if necessary conditions are met.

First, the election must prove to have been free and fair. If strong evidence of electoral fraud emerges, the Obama administration should not hesitate to deem the elections illegitimate and withdraw its tentative backing. Second, Lobo should only be recognized as the new head of state if the intimidation of dissident groups ceases. Amnesty International has reported that factions affiliated with the government have unlawfully suppressed Zelaya supporters in preparation for the election. If the Honduran government did indeed hold a clean election and successfully ends the thuggish behavior of some government-affiliated groups, it will merit the recognition of the vote, and the United States should provide it. By making this recognition conditional, the United States can make clear that it only approves of the restoration of the democratic election process, not of the coup.

Washington must also hold the perpetrators of the coup responsible. The stream of military aid flowing into Honduras from the U.S. before the coup made the army extremely powerful, and its actions during the coup prove that it has wielded that power irresponsibly. As a punishment for the coup, the United States should cut off all military aid and restore it only once the events of the coup have been thoroughly investigated, as was promised in the power-sharing deal. Continuing to provide military aid would be a slap in the face of the Hondurans who saw their democratically-elected president whisked away by well-armed soldiers.

Washington also provides more than $180 million in miscellaneous aid to Honduras each year. Some have suggested that this aid should be withheld along with military aid, as punishment for the coup. Honduras is extremely reliant on American dollars, the argument goes, so shutting off aid could send a powerful message. Withholding the aid, however, would be ill-advised, and would only reflect the Cold War mentality that prioritized American interests over foreign lives. The people that have already suffered the most from the coup, the working poor, are those most likely to be affected by a reduction in aid. This could turn people against the United States and would punish the victims of the coup more than its perpetrators.

The United States needs to keep in mind the legacy of foreign intervention in Central America as it continues to address the aftermath of the Zelaya coup. Any significant misstep will undoubtedly reinvigorate anti-American sentiments that have been waning in recent months as a result of President Obama’s diplomatic endeavors. By handling Latin America’s first post-Cold War coup in a way that affirms that the war against communism is indeed over, the United States can take further legitimacy away from its critics and foster stable and prosperous ties across Latin America. Then, perhaps, Porfiro Díaz’s words can finally be laid to rest.

Japan is an economically strong and politically valuable ally in East Asia because it shares U.S. interests in advancing human rights and disarming North Korea. Washington should therefore improve its relationship with Tokyo by cooperating on the countries’ shared policy goals, maintaining its commitment negotiate the presence of the U.S. Marine base in Okinawa, and supporting Japan’s aspirations to join the UN Security Council.

At first glance, the DPJ victory would appear to put the U.S. at risk of losing one of its most reliable allies. Hatoyama advocates detaching Japan from the U.S. and its foreign conflicts, while remedying injured relations with neighboring countries. Realistically, the U.S. should expect less cooperation from Tokyo on a few key issues such as the Japanese Navy’s refueling mission in the Indian Ocean and maintaining a U.S. airfield on the island of Okinawa.

Nonetheless, new directions in Japan’s foreign policy could prove beneficial for both countries in the long run. Under new leadership, Japan could assume a more active role in fostering stability in East Asia by cultivating closer ties with other East Asian nations.

According to Gilbert Rozman, a professor of sociology at Princeton University and an expert on Japan, Japan’s postwar foreign policy goals have been threefold. It has focused on maintaining the alliance with the U.S., developing positive relations with its neighbors, and acquiring a more significant role in international institutions such as the United Nations. In the past, these policy goals tended to conflict, with one improving at the expense of the others.

Such was the case over the last decade. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi prioritized strengthening ties to the U.S. by cultivating a close personal friendship with the former President George W. Bush and offering non-military assistance to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush reciprocated this friendship in 2006 by pledging support for Japan’s (ultimately unsuccessful) bid to acquire a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Japan pursued its relationship with the U.S. and a stronger role in the UN at the expense of distancing itself from its East Asian neighbors. Koizumi’s provocative acts, including visiting the Yasukuni Shrine—home to the graves of many leaders who have been judged as war criminals—angered China and South Korea. Growing Chinese nationalism spawned widespread anti-Japanese protests, fanned in part by a campaign undertaken by Koizumi and his successor that appeared to whitewash the Japanese army’s atrocities during World War II. It is in light of this troubled history that Hatoyama hopes to regain the favor of its East Asian neighbors. Japan’s neighbors welcomed his announcement that he will not visit Yasukuni.

In light of Japan’s history and its important geopolitical position, President Obama should send a clear signal that Japan’s new focus on strengthening ties with its neighbors need not dent the friendship between the U.S. and Japan.

That means reassuring Japan that the U.S. remains committed to disarming North Korea whose nuclear arsenal is a direct threat to Japan’s security. Hatoyama, along with his Chinese and South Korean counterparts, have recently urged the resumption of the Six Party Talks with North Korea, which also involve the U.S. and Russia. Obama, for his part, has levied sanctions against North Korea in response to its missile tests in April and has made continuation of the Six Party Talks a precondition for further bilateral negotiations.

When it comes to political conflicts between the U.S and Japan, Obama will have to pick his battles. With the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, the Japanese refueling mission is likely to remain an essential component of American military expeditions in the Middle East. The Okinawa base, on the other hand, is not as crucial to foreign missions. The nearby U.S.-controlled island of Guam offers a convenient alternative location that both serves U.S. purposes and satisfies the Japanese government. Recognizing the possibility for compromise, the military already has plans to shift some of its forces there beginning in 2014. Reaching agreement on Okinawa may allow the U.S. to bargain for Japan’s continued commitment to assist the U.S.-led war on terror. Hatoyama’s recent pledge of $5 billion in reconstruction aid to Afghanistan suggests that he is willing to support the global security objectives of the U.S.

Obama and Hatoyama can also strengthen their relationship by working together on international issues, such as human rights and climate change. The DPJ has vowed to slash Japan’s carbon emissions to 25% below 1990 levels in the next decade, a step up from previous targets. Such a cut could spur other developed nations to adopt similar measures, particularly the U.S., where Obama’s proposed cap and trade bill faces strong opposition in Congress. Collaborating on this initiative would reinforce the notion that Japan is a friend of the United States and thus alleviate the salience of anti-American sentiments espoused by the Japanese left.

A more assertive and neutral Japan can be positive for the U.S. as well as Japan. The two states still have many historic, economic, and political connections, as well as shared policy outlooks regarding regional security threats, such as North Korea. The Obama administration should invest both the time and the political capital necessary to strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance as part of its broader efforts to maintain East Asian stability and security.