Barack Obama has been criticized by his political opponents, in particular his Republican presidential opponent, John McCain, for being weak on foreign policy. It is therefore quite ironic that the current Republican administration appears to be converging on some of Obama’s foreign policy proposals.

Last week, for instance, the administration made a significant policy shift when it agreed to send a senior member of the State Department, Under Secretary of State William Burns, to attend diplomatic talks with Iran’s top nuclear official in Geneva, Switzerland. Burns met with the Iranian representative along with members of the “P5 + 1 partners” (consisting of representatives from the permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia - and Germany, that have been negotiating over Iran's controversial nuclear program).

This about-face by the Bush administration was a significant shift from the U.S. 30-year stand-off with Iran, and very close to Obama’s often criticized (even publicly by Bush in a speech in Israel) policy of holding diplomatic talks with America’s enemies. In referring to the talks with the Iranians, although Burns was under strict orders not to negotiate with them, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even said that she believed the meeting with the Iranians was a smart step to take and send a strong signal to the world, America’s P5 + 1 partners, and the Iranian government, that the U.S. is committed to diplomacy and finding a diplomatic solution to this issue. Interesting comment – the U.S. is now committed to finding “diplomatic solutions.” Very Obama-like.

The talks held in Geneva last weekend did not achieve the intent of getting Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program. Now it is uncertain if further diplomatic talks will be held as the six nations, including the U.S., have told Iran that no further talks would be held with them on their offer to withhold new U.N. sanctions unless Iran refrains from adding new enrichment machines to its nuclear program. However, it is significant that diplomat talks did begin.

Obama is currently on an overseas trip that includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East and Europe. This visit was largely in response to the perpetual criticism by the McCain campaign that Obama could not be an effective commander-in-chief if he was unfamiliar with actions on the ground in the Iraqi and Afghanistan war zones. Now that Obama has made the visits to the two war zones and has appeared extremely presidential and effective, the McCain campaign has continued to criticize him, claiming that Obama’s trip is campaign posturing. What does McCain really want?  He ridiculed Obama for not having enough knowledge about the war zones, and now he is ridiculing him for making the trip and as someone who has no military experience. Possibly, the apparent success of Obama’s trip has left McCain flustered. On Monday morning on the “Today Show”, McCain referred to a Iraq and Afghanistan border, when Afghanistan really borders Pakistan.

However, it is understandable why McCain seems flustered, especially with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki effectively agreeing with Obama’s time-table for troop withdrawal by saying that he wanted a two-and-a-half-year timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Moreover, President Bush has recently agreed to a “general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, which is an indication of the depth of political opposition, including Obama’s, to extended American military presence in Iraq, and, admittedly, progress made in stabilizing Iraq. Not unlikely, the Bush administration and the McCain Campaign were anticipating that Obama would falter during his overseas trip, make mistakes and seem indecisive, to bolster arguments that he is weak on foreign policy – but, so far so good for Obama.

Despite Obama’s seeming success on his foreign policy excursion, caution should be heeded as the potential effectiveness of an Obama presidential foreign policy is examined. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe do not constitute the realm of America’s foreign policy. There are other countries including the Latin American and Caribbean region to be considered in this foreign policy. For the past eight years America’s foreign policy to this region has been minimal, mainly window dressing and lip service.  There are serious problems arising directly from the decline in the American economy that affects the region and which must be considered in America’s policy towards the region. Also, the problems affecting the region resulting from America’s policy of deporting individuals convicted of criminal activities back to the region must be addressed. True, there are no major wars in the region, and the communist threat has been greatly reduced, but nonetheless the region should be a significant part of America’s foreign policy.  It is anticipated that the Obama campaign (and McCain’s)  will give due consideration to the needs of the Caribbean, including Cuba and Haiti, and Latin America, in shaping its foreign policy. Definitive statements by both campaigns of their foreign policy plans for the region are required. Lip service can no longer suffice.

What Obama’s fact finding trip has revealed is that those seeking the presidency of the United States, and by extension, leadership of the free-world, should make familiarization trips in key areas of this free world as part of the campaign for the presidency. Regardless of what may be said about America, the world is now a global community and, whether negative or positive, America’s influence permeates most corners of this community. Therefore, presidential aspirants should have, as practical as possible, firsthand knowledge of the world in order to implement an effective foreign policy, notwithstanding the role of whoever is the Secretary of State.