Views on the State of the Union

Interview and video possibilities on Asia-related stories including key foreign policy issues facing President Obama as he prepares to deliver the State of Union address this week.

To arrange interviews on these and other topics, feel free to contact us at 212-327-9271 or [email protected]

Seeking Clarity on Afghanistan

“President Obama's upcoming State of the Union speech is keenly awaited in policy circles as well as in academia for a variety of reasons. Those interested in foreign policy are expecting more clarity and consistency from this administration on Afghanistan. The prolonged review process can be defended but inaction cannot be. It is evident now a 'surge' in itself is insufficient, drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal belt at best constitute a tactic not a strategy, and -- last but not least -- without a regional detente and collaborative approach, little progress is expected in Afghanistan. From 'Obama's war,' it has to transform into an international effort,” says Asia Society Bernard Schwartz Fellow Hassan Abbas. Hassan is based in New York.

“Two months into President Obama’s 18-month timetable for seeing improvement in Afghanistan, there are few signs of progress. As the self-imposed clock ticks down, the Afghan government is showing little evidence that it can get its act together, the Taliban is becoming increasingly emboldened, and Pakistan is showing no sign whatsoever that it is willing to crack down on the Afghan Taliban receiving safe haven and possible support on Pakistani soil. It is difficult if not impossible to imagine that the administration will be able to maintain congressional support for the war in Afghanistan absent significant progress on the ground, particularly in light of the strong message that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts has delivered. If the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential race will be about jobs and the economy, the American public and Congress will have increasingly less appetite for a never-ending, seemingly impossible war in Afghanistan. The Taliban, like the North Vietnamese before them, are fully aware of this dynamic, will likely not negotiate under present conditions, and see victory within their grasp. In his Dec. 1 Afghanistan speech at West Point, President Obama said that he would “refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests, and … weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.” From the perspective of the situation in Afghanistan and the changing domestic political landscape in the United States, moving forward in Afghanistan at current levels of commitment may well prove to be a bridge too far. How President Obama situates the struggle in Afghanistan in the context of America’s overall strategic interests will be a key issue to watch in the State of the Union address Wednesday night,” says Asia Society Executive Vice President Jamie Metzl. Jamie is in New York.

Listeners in Asia Wary of Moves to Shake Up Trade

"Asians are trying to evaluate the strength of support that President Obama has after the Massachusetts election result and falling poll numbers. They will also look for signs of what focus he will bring if, as many advise, his ambitious agenda needs to be trimmed back. In particular they will be concerned about populist measures that might shore up support at home and claim to save jobs but negatively impact free trade and links with Asian economies. A weak president cannot deal effectively with Asians. But a president who tries to gain strength at the expense of Asia and trade will not be welcome either,” says Asia Society Associate Fellow Simon Tay. Simon is based in Singapore.

'Talking to Enemies' - The Cases of Burma and Iran

"For his first State of the Union address, President Obama most certainly will devote some time to defending his evolving approach to global diplomacy and, in particular, efforts to ‘talk to enemies,’ such as Burma and Iran,” says Suzanne DiMaggio, Asia Society’s Director of Policy Studies. “Over the past year, the Obama administration has steadily reversed the Bush era’s policy of isolation toward both countries in favor of ‘pragmatic engagement,’ but the fact is that the president has very little concrete progress to point to in both cases.”

“In the case of Burma, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that Burma’s military leaders will respond positively to the central U.S. message on engaging in tripartite dialogue, releasing political prisoners, and allowing fair and inclusive elections. In fact, it is quite possible that the leadership’s primary objective in engagement with the U.S. is to demonstrate to its own population that the U.S. endorses the regime’s ‘seven-step process’ toward democracy. The U.S. must tread carefully through this minefield, avoiding the appearance of sanctioning or legitimizing a flawed election process, while pressing Burma’s generals to carry out credible elections.”

“As for Iran, a much higher foreign policy priority for the U.S., President Obama has been sharply focused in his pursuit to directly engage the powers that be in Tehran without preconditions. Since assuming the presidency, all talk of ‘regime change’ has come to a halt, and in his videotaped Nowruz message in March 2009, he referred to the country as the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’ -- recognition of the IRI as the legitimate government of Iran. However, the June 2009 presidential election in Iran and the turmoil that has followed have brought talks aimed at curtailing Iran’s nuclear program to a stalemate. The president must make the case that his new course, which will take time, holds the best chance for advancing U.S. interests.”

Suzanne directs the Asia Society’s Iran Initiative and the Task Force on U.S. Policy towards Burma/Myanmar. She is in New York.

Obama and Japan: Fight Over Trivia Threatens Prospect of Great Synergy

“With a dizzying array of difficult issues on his plate, both domestic and foreign, one reliable ally President Obama could turn to for financial help and moral support would be Japan. Its new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who took power last summer after a landslide victory by his Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) based on a promise of change, shares many of Obama’s global goals -- curtailment of CO2 emissions, poverty reduction, nuclear non-proliferation, the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to name a few. But Tokyo’s desire to coordinate its effort with the Obama administration on these issues has been stymied by Washington’s single-minded demand on one issue -- that Tokyo honor to the letter a 2006 bilateral agreement made by the former Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) government, to move the Futenma Marine Air Station from its current location in a densely populated area of Okinawa to another part of the island,” says Asia Society Associate Fellow Ayako Doi.

“Hatoyama promised to review the terms of that accord during the campaign. And for now he needs the support of the tiny Social Democratic Party (SDP) to control the Diet. The SDP is staunchly opposed to the Okinawa accord. As a result, Hatoyama has postponed a decision until the main legislative season ends in May. On Sunday, voters in Nago, the city in which a new Marine air field is to be built, elected an anti-base mayor, making it harder for Hatoyama to endorse the 2006 plan. Whatever he decides, there seems to be no solution that will please Washington without undercutting Hatoyama’s credibility at home. Obama must find a way to stop staking America's most important alliance in Asia – and one that is potentially very useful -- on the relatively minor base issue. Doing so would let him start working with Japan to solve other global problems. A failure to do so could give Tokyo an incentive to work more closely with Beijing, which has been wooing the DPJ leadership with a charm offensive.” Ayako is based in the Washington DC area.

Relations with North Korea - What's in Store for 2010

“Barack Obama and Kim Jong Il basically fought to a standstill in 2009. North Korea confounded Washington with a series of controversial actions in the spring, most notably testing a satellite rocket, short and long-range missiles, and a nuclear device. Although provocative, none of these actions fundamentally altered the strategic balance of power and interests on the Peninsula. Pyongyang then began a modest charm offensive in the summer directed toward both Washington and Seoul, and US-DPRK relations were inched forward by the visits to Pyongyang of former President Bill Clinton in August and Special Representative for North Korean Policy Stephen Bosworth in December. But the Six Party Talks, the diplomatic process that had been making piecemeal progress towards Korean denuclearization under the Bush administration, remained suspended all year, as sanctions at the U.N. Security Council replaced ministerial meetings in Beijing as the prime modality for Korean diplomacy,” says John Delury, Associate Director of Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations.

“What's in store for 2010? The Six Party Talks are likely to resume, and with them, an opportunity for Obama's North Korea team to demonstrate its ability to negotiate step by step toward a lasting resolution of a conflict that started 60 years ago, and a nuclear controversy that has brewed for decades. It is unlikely this year will see a major breakthrough, but hopefully a robust process of multifaceted, multilateral engagement will be reestablished, and small victories can generate momentum in the right direction.” John is in New York.