Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
From the beginning, however, the Obama administration has made clear that engagement is not an end in itself, but a means to various goals, both bilateral and regional.While Obama would likely acknowledge that U.S. policy did not bring about these changes (which resulted from an internal process of recalculation by the president, General Thein Sein), the U.S. was responsive and flexible enough to encourage them.On the regional front, Obama hoped that an opening with Myanmar would ensure that the country did not become wholly dependent on China, while enabling the U.S. to deepen its relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Whatever America's Republican Party tries to claim during the 2016 presidential election campaign, Obama's policy of engagement has worked, enabling the U.S. to shape events in even the most closed countries.Bilateral engagement will prove to be one of Obama's most important foreign-policy legacies. But ensuring that the U.S. can continue to lead in the 21st century will require a different kind of engagement.
The reality of post-American networks
How to govern a digitally networked world
Where is U.S. foreign policy
headed after the midterm elections?
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE