The Foreign Minister and I, as he mentioned, did indeed talk about Syria. And I thanked the Foreign Minister for the constant pressure that the Government of Turkey has placed on the Assad regime, which, as we both have said repeatedly, must go. Turkey has also been incredibly generous to the refugees of this crisis, and they have taken them in by the thousands, kept their borders open, done everything possible to try to respond to that increasing humanitarian crisis.

Relations between the two countries, once strong allies, have been in tatters since May 2010, when Israeli troops raided a flotilla of ships carrying aid from Turkey to Gaza. The raid killed nine Turkish citizens and prompted the Turkish government to expel its Israeli ambassador and recall its own from Israel. The countries’ two powerful militaries, once close partners, began to regard each other as hostile forces, and lucrative trade dried up. Even the number of Israeli tourists to Turkey, who once flocked there, dwindled amid fears that the country was no longer safe for travel.

It may take a few years before the Chinese fully understand soft power. Soft power, as a concept, has been widely discussed in China, the understanding of which mainly comes from the explanation of the man who first outlined it, American scholar Joseph Nye, and observations of US soft power. But China may adopt a different means to developing soft power.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has delivered a keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the Boao Forum for Asia 2013 in the coastal town of Boao, in China's Hainan Province. President Xi expressed his wish to work with regional leaders to build a better future for Asia and the world.

“Charlie Wilson’s War” – like many Hollywood films – took extraordinary license with the facts, presenting many of the war’s core elements incorrectly. That in itself might not be a serious problem, except that key U.S. policymakers have cited these mythical “facts” as lessons to guide the current U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan.

The United States has played a significant role in Yemen’s transition, which ushered out former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in exchange for immunity, and inaugurated a unity government and consensus president that are overseeing a national dialogue launched last month. The U.S. has pledged support for the dialogue, which will lead to a constitutional referendum and new elections. To many Yemenis, however, Washington is narrowly focused on short-term security concerns and the fight against terrorism; the U.S., they think, cares little about real political change.

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.