When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. Obama’s trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said “thank you, guys,” and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists’ questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public’s expectations had been “too high.”

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama’s currency isn’t as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington’s new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences. 

The mood in Obama’s foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The “first Pacific president,” as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans. A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over. Clinton mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough approach taken by the Chinese Communists. At the end of the exchange, the Chinese president praised the debate and said: “I believe this is democracy!”

Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just as Obama’s plane was about to land.

Obama’s new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama’s call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. “We thought we had some leverage,” says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. “But that proved to be an illusion.”

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. “We’re searching for an exit strategy,” said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington’s policy toward Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned “consequences” unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began — with threats. “Time is running out,” Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama’s advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. “Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,” Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: “This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter.”

By and large, I think that we all knew that some detainees over at Guantanamo Bay would be transferred elsewhere; it is also common knowledge that four of the detainees were Chinese Muslims – Uighurs, to be exact.  We also knew that they would be transferred to Bermuda as part of President Obama’s plan to close down Gitmo by January 2010.  But there’s a twist to this, folks.

While this transfer took place, it appears that it took place without any consultation with the United Kingdom.  And rest assured, London is none too pleased.  In essence, the Obama administration has treated the U.K. like a “redheaded step-child”.  What’s messed up here is that after the transfer, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally got around to talking to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.  An official familiar with the process even said:

“The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally.”

Give credit to Bermuda’s prime minister, Ewart Brown, for bringing this out in the open; his statement?  It speaks volumes:

“Nothing like this happens overnight. We started these discussions the middle of May. You can understand that this matter is of such significance and why the talks had to be private and somewhat restricted.”

While Brown gets credit here, I would expect that he will receive flak from the British government – and rightfully so.  Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department tried to deflect blame by stating that there were talks between the department and the office of the British governor – which the British governor has flatly denied ever took place.

I guess the first thing that comes to mind is that between allies, you always consult with them before doing transfers or anything else of importance.  what the Obama administration failed to recognize – or chose to ignore – is the fact that Bermuda ia a British colony.  And as such, they have first rights of refusal.  In other words, they have the final word.

I understand that the administration is trying to get detainees relocated in a short a timeframe as possible.  But there’s this thing called protocol; diplomacy requires it.  The Obama administration needs to bone up on Foreign Policy 101 as they obviously do not have a clue.  I can only think of one reason why Bermuda took these Uighurs in the first place. 

Bermuda relies heavily on the United States as a major revenue stream as 78% of their money comes from American companies being headquartered there; also, 90% of its tourist industry relied on American tourists.  What repercussions will come out of this?  I would expect, as previously mentioned that the Bermudian PM will get a dressing-down by the U.K.  Meanwhile, I would expect that the U.S. and England will remain allies, although episodes like this from the administration hardly gives Obama any “street cred” across the pond.  I don’t blame the U.K. one bit here.  If I was consulted beforehand, I would be mighty pissed, too.  Meanwhile, four Uighurs live the life of tourists in Bermuda.

*UPDATE* 6:25 PM (EST):

President Obama has said that Italy will accept three detainees from Guantanamo Bay; Obama announced the agreement at the end of an Oval Office meeting on Monday (today) with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I would have to say that President Obama is clueless on any type of foreign policy, as evidenced by his actions on Monday.  Obama went to Turkey – presumably to mend fences with European nations – and addressed the Turkish parliament.  He went there to call on a greater partnership with the Islamic world and also called Turkey a great ally in the fight against terrorism.  But mostly, he was there urging a greater bond between our country and the Muslims.

A couple statements that Obama made are quite telling:

“Let me say this as clearly as I can. The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical … in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”

And this one:

“America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”

It is statements such as these which make our country lose “street cred” internationally.  First of all, it is common knowledge that a Muslim faction is responsible for the events leading to and including 9/11.  It is also a fact that the Muslim community hasn’t exactly stepped up to the plate to denounce things that al-Qaida has done state-side.

Another thing.  How will “broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect” all of a sudden improve relations between the U.S. and the Muslims?  Unfortunately for them, the activities of al-Qaida and other fringe Muslim groups will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to improve the strained relationship between our country and the Muslims.

Obama apparently has taken a page out of the Europeans’ playbook on diplomacy as it is a fact that the Europeans have long kowtowed to the Muslims – despite certain European cities getting the business from these Muslim fringe groups.  If anything here folks, Obama is systematically making our country less safe with his dumb actions.  I hope like hell that Congress is keeping up to speed on this because I suspect that Obama is going to propose legislation that will cut the Muslims – the fringe groups anyways – some major slack.

But son’t take my word for it. Let’s hear it from the mouth of Obama.

In most situations, before military force is utilized, oftentimes diplomacy is normally used until all of the ideas run out.  And under George W. Bush’s watch, it pretty much worked, as evidenced by the fact that since 9/11, our country has not been attacked.  Enter Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The president and Secretary of State, at their current diplomatic rate, are about to make the US quite possibly the laughing stock of the civilized world on several fronts.

Let’s start with the economic front.  You have to know that we aren’t being taken seriously when the Socialists from across the pond – including France, mind you – are all of a sudden telling us how to mind our financial affairs.  Which hasn’t been done in recent memory – if ever.  Perhaps you can give credit where credit is due – to Turbotax Timmy aka Timothy Geithner.  I mean, c’mon – first of all he claims to have these great ideas for Wall Street.

Which is all well and good except that he has no details.  Only an idea – but no clue.  Now he wants additional powers to for all intents and purposes exert greater control of not only Wall Street but Main Street, as well?  That’s like giving a ROTC graduate full access to the red phone during an international crisis.  This is the same guy who was in charge of the Federal Reserve bank in New York and had full knowledge of what was going on over at AIG.  And don’t think that the international community isn’t taking notice.  You know that they are – and we’re losing street cred because of it.

Then there’s our Secretary of State.  One of her first assignments?  To defuse a naval situation off the coast of China.  So what does she do?  She nips that in the bud – I guess – but she goes further.  She kowtows to the Chinese and begs them to buy more of our debt load.  Certainly there were giggling fits in Beijing and elsewhere.  Then she recently makes the trip to Mexico – her first real trip involving diplomacy.  Her assignment was to get Mexico on the same page as us. 

What does she do instead?  She outs our country as basically a nation of drug addicts and as a result, part of the problem.  In other words, the US are enablers of the Mexican drug cartel; and according to her, we not only buy their drugs in bulk, but we also supply 90% of their guns.  If that was the case, then where in the hell do the guns come from?  Anyone?  Anyone?  More street cred lost.

Then there’s our president.  His aims are relatively simple: he wants this great nation of ours to be Socialist.  How else to do you explain his “health care overhaul”?  Not to mention his “green” agenda in which cap-and-trade (a Ponzi scheme if ever I saw one) would be the rule rather than the exception, along with acquiescing to the tree-huggers and other special interest groups and make everything run by either solar and wind power and gradually eliminate the oil and natural gas industries completely.  Certainly the Socialists over in Europe are orgasmic over this.  Yet even more street cred lost.

Then there’s Obama’s “message” to Iran.  The one where he gets all “conciliatory” and shit.  Basically Youtubing and telling the Iranian people that we’re their friends and not their enemies.  Does this tool realize that it is this same country that played a part in 9/11?  How in the hell does his “make-peace” message get anything accomplished?  and again – you can call Bush’s diplomacy “cowboy” or whatever, but you know what? 

It got things done and our country has been safer because of it.  What Obama is doing right now is only going to make us look foolish to all of the terrorist organizations around the world.  All you have to do is look at Europe as a prime example.  Terrorist organizations bombing select cities over there.  It is the Europeans’ Socialist mentality that brings them these problems.  And guess what folks?  The North Koreans are testing us.  They want to test-launch a missile in early April.

Already Clinton has told them that there will be “consequences” if they launch this missile.  And the consequences are what?  Tell them to go in the corner and take a timeout?  Just on their recent track record, I have a very hard time taking Clinton and this president of ours seriously.  As a matter of fact, I’m rather afraid.  After all, we have a former First Lady and a “community organizer” who are the face of our country – which is never good.  We can’t seem to get our financial affairs in order stateside while Hillary is making our country an embarrassment.

And yes, I am going to keep saying this until things turn around: we, the people, need to get off our asses and get proactive.  Proactive as in the current “tea parties” that are slowly gaining steam nationally.  Proactive as in getting involved in campaigns for your local congressman/woman and/or senator…hell, your governor (if that applies) too.  And most importantly, get your asses out there in 2010 and 2012 and vote.  That is what got us in trouble in 2008.  We got complacent and this is what we got in return.  What I do know is this – if we do not get out there and do something, our great nation will truly become Socialist and at the same time, go to hell in a handbasket.  And the Democraps will be the ones holding onto the handbasket.

I have no idea what North Korea’s motivation is – but because their leader is a psychopath in my humble opinion – but they seem to again have the nuclear itch as according to reports from South Korea’s Defense Ministry on Monday, their neighbors to the north recently deployed a new version of medium-range missile that can reach the shores of northern Australia and the U.S. territory of Guam.

The report comes on the heels of the rumor that the North Koreans are on the verge of test-firing another, longer-range missile which is capable of reaching the state of Alaska.  The medium-range missile (the one that’s already deployed) can not only reach Guam and the northern tip of Australia, but also much of Russia and India as well.  The longer-range missile in question is rumored to be an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, which would have the capability of reaching the state of Alaska and perhaps as far as the U.S. west coast.

To no ones surprise – within Korea and internationally – the missile program of North Korea has a stockpile of missiles, including shorter-range missiles that can reach South Korea and Japan; North Korea’s ambitions have been a pain in the butt to both South Korea and internationally, especially when the North Koreans test-launched a Taepodong-2 back in 2006.

North Korea’s short-range missiles’ - SCUDS – likeliest destination would be South Korea as they have a range of approximately 310 miles; the North has around 1,000 missiles at their disposal.  In addition to the missile happenings, the North Koreans are beefing up their navy by bolstering their submarines and developing new ground-to-ship and ship-to-ship missiles and torpedoes with the concern being that they may want to provoke a clash near its disputed sea border.

I do not have a clue how much more diplomacy that you can bring to the table when dealing with the North Koreans as it has been proven that they break every treaty that has ever been agreed to and more of the same would happen should the U.S. decide to go the diplomacy route.  Hillary Clinton will have to get involved here, I suspect, at some point in time. And one other thing – I believe that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-Mentally-Il, needs to go.

He is a mental case who is capable of anything and his mental instability is very well-known.  At the same time, I am not about to advocate how Jong-il should vanish, I am just saying that he simply needs to go.  Nothing more than that.