Burma’s ethnic leaders have accused the United States of providing inadequate support for the Southeast Asian country’s peace process and are urging US President Barack Obama to stress the issue during his meeting with Burmese counterpart Thein Sein on Monday at the White House.

President Barack Obama will meet with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China on June 7-8 at the estate of Walter and Leonore Annenberg, who were known around the globe for the political dignitaries they hosted behind the pink walled enclave in Rancho Mirage.

Perhaps the greatest disappointment is the president’s surprising reluctance to use the tools, not of hard power but of soft — especially the aggressive deployment of social media to win foreign policy ends, such as persuading Iranians to oppose their regime’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons or supporting democratic elements in Egypt and other nations of the Arab spring.

In an article in The New Yorker two years ago, reporter Ryan Lizza famously quoted an anonymous adviser to President Obama characterizing the president’s strategy in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a bad way to describe the president’s foreign policy in general. Obama takes great pains not to lead too conspicuously, not to step on toes, not to offend allies or enemies. Libya, in fact, was the ideal: Let the Europeans and the Arabs take the lead, and we’ll quietly help out. Or not.

The U.S. government has even run ads in various newspapers in Myanmar showing crashed World War II aircraft and posting a phone number (09-541-9569) where locals can call and share information, stories and coordinates. The World War II-MIA card will be played close to the vest by the ruling junta in the ensuing years, just has it has in the past.

Now that the dust has settled on President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated trip to Israel, it is possible to analyse the significance of the visit. The trip — the first foreign visit of his second term — carries important implications for US foreign policy. Rather than providing the breakthrough for which many had hoped, it demonstrated that Obama — unlike other second-term US presidents, who have staked their legacies on foreign policy — is interested primarily in securing a domestic legacy.

After 34 years of hostilities between Iran and the US, there is now an opportunity for settling their mutual differences. The Obama administration has reiterated its willingness to engage in direct bilateral talks with Iran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has responded to this overture by indicating that Iran would be open to talks when America “proves its goodwill”. And even so, the next round of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 world powers began on March 5 in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Now that the dust has settled on President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated trip to Israel, it is possible to analyse the significance of the visit. The trip – the first foreign visit of his second term – carries important implications for US foreign policy. Rather than providing the breakthrough for which many had hoped, it demonstrated that Obama – unlike other second-term US presidents, who have staked their legacies on foreign policy – is interested primarily in securing a domestic legacy.