No doubt there has been much for the U.S. to focus on elsewhere in the world recently, from Russia to Iran. But in past weeks, it seems that the movie in Asia has been on fast-forward around global development and financing. And once again, the U.S. is scrambling to catch up.
The meeting between President Obama and Raul Castro can be seen as emblematic of a new philosophy governing relations among nations of the Americas, and provides an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the challenges ahead if we seize the moment.
Perhaps nothing epitomizes the state of affairs in the Republican Party today more than the estrangement of James Baker from the Republican establishment. Nothing because, for what seems like decades, James Baker was the Republican establishment.
President Obama has nearly two years to make the rapprochements with Iran and Cuba irreversible. If he can do that, and bring about a ceasefire in Syria to boot, then his diplomatic legacy will be secure -- no matter what his successor does to reassert the worst kind of dumb power.
The recent changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba have produced plenty of U.S. media coverage examining the things Cuba is lacking: freedom of the press, new paint on buildings, leaders less than 80 years old. But our media have failed to document the many other things Cuba is lacking.
The main hurdle to restoring full diplomatic relations in Cuba centers on how much freedom U.S. diplomats will have to travel around Cuba and what the U.S. embassy will be allowed to bring into the country. While these may seem like mundane issues of every-day operations that should be easy to settle, they are not.
The acquisition of energy has become a dominant influence in China's foreign policy orientation generally, and has been a driving force in its relationship with Myanmar in recent years.
All sides deny that the two cases are linked, but there is worry that the fierce Israeli opposition to the U.S. and European framework agreement with Iran could force Washington to make an unethical trade-off.
Advocates of a military strike argue that any deal will at best forestall Iran's progress and that only military force will thwart its attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. Those who seek to undermine the deal and continue to advocate for a military "solution" should answer the following five questions and consider some relevant counterpoints.
The current agreement will not prevent Iran from developing an atomic device in the future, nor will it constrain its ability to develop ballistic missile technology. The agreement will significantly slow down Iran's ability to develop an atomic device and, in all likelihood, delay that eventuality for another 10 to 15 years.
Democratic Party leaders had better get their collective talking points agreed upon and distributed to make their message straightforward: Democrats want peace and to get us out of the Middle East mess that the Bush Administration left behind.
Only time will tell as we move into uncertain and dangerous times as authoritarian regimes seek to transform the very nature of regional and global politics.
Alliances of convenience are the staple of foreign policy as any reader of Machiavelli knows. Obama wants a deal over Iranian nuclear capabilities for it would be a major success of US foreign policy.
Tell me again: Whose side are we on this time? ...
Could this latest stunt hint at leadership struggles within the GOP? It's an ironic possibility when you consider that the GOP takeover of both houses in January was supposed to herald an era of strong and responsible Republican leadership, not division.
In looking for more images that tell a story we may find ourselves forced to dig deeper and our writing may get better, too. It may also make news and opinion writing more fulfilling and representative. After all, what haven't we said already?