longer. . >> the mystery conditions. i'm thomas drayton in new york. "inside story" is next. for news updates throughout the day. check out al jazeera. thanks for watching. >> president obama's returning home to the u.s. to find the lowest approval ratings of his years at the white house. in foreign affairs the president has defended his approach as one that protects american interests and american friends in a multi polar world. is there an obama doctrine? it's the inside story.

>> hello, i'm ray suarez. president obama is coming back to a divided washington from a trip to asia. he paid his respects to the south korea still reeling from the death of hundreds in a ferry accident, tended to one of the country's oldest and closest relationships in asia with talks with the philippines. russia continued to muscle ukraine, syria is set to turn over the last of its chemical weapons but continues to kill civilians with hayes, and he returns to washington empty hasn'ted with thhanded with tale and israel. in crisis around the world in the past five years did the u.s. get the approach that the president wanted? that's the "inside story."

let's recap by looking at the u.s. in the world during the obama years. >> reporter: u.s. president barack obama headed home after a week-long visit to four asian nations. the trip was part of the president's promise to strength solidarity and trade. >> today the philippines welcomed president obama. >> reporter: but in the news conference along side the filipino president, a reporter brought more to the surface than planned. >> as you end this trip, i don't think i have to remind you there have been unflattering reminders of your foreign policy. >> reporter: unscripted reminder of the president's modest successes abroad. >> typically criticism of our foreign policies have been directed at the failure to use military force. and the question i think i would

why is it that everyone is so eager to use military force? after we've just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget. and what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished? >> reporter: the increasing criticism that the president refers to comes from prominent republicans and others who question why obama has been reluctant to mill taylorly intervene in international crises. >> we cannot ignore the flawed foreign policy of the last few years has brought us to the stage. because we have a president who believes by the sheer force of his personality he can change foreign gelants i think it cautious slap on the wrists is not taking us where we need to go. >> the fact that the united states will not give defensive

weapons to ukraine, including body armor, night goggles, jet fuel, spare parts, not even give that in fear of provoking vladimir putin only encourages vladimir putin. >> reporter: the president addressed the ukraine stand off as it overshadowed most of his asia trip. >> most people think that some how us sending additional arms into ukraine could potentially deter the russian army. [ explosion ] >> reporter: in syria the u.s. is supplying weapons but did not get involved military taylor as the red line was crossed by the assad government.

he explained his reasoning with a hypothetical back and forth with his critics. >> those who criticize even say no, no, we don't mean sending in troops. well, what do you mean? well, send in assistance to the opposition. well, we are assisting opposition. what else do you mean? we are getting chemical weapons out of syria without a strike. what else do you want. and at that point it trails off. >> after failures seen of his predecessors war in iraq. >> the point is that for some reason many who were proponent of what i consider to be a disastrous decision to go into iraq haven't really learned the

lesson of the last decade. they keep playing the same note over and over again. why, i don't know. >> and the president ended his thoughts on the foreign policy legacy on this note. >> that may not always be sexy. that may not always attract a lot of attention, and it doesn't make for good argument on sunday morning shows, but it avoids errors. you hit singles, you hit doubles. every onc once in a while you my hit a home run, but we steadily advance the interest of the american people and our partnership with folks around the world. >> american foreign policy at a turbulent time in the world. fighting the domestic battle over healthcare, over the reluctant republican party

president obama could not let the world wait until he could get to it. joining us for an assessment of the president's handling of foreign affairs, isaac zone fish associate editor of foreign policy. nancy soderberg, former ambassador to the u.n. and deputy security adviser during the clinton administration. and in studio with us molly m mcqueue, a foreign policy consulting firm. nancy soderberg, let me ask you, as you look back at the five years of the barack obama foreign policy, how is he doing? >> i think he's doing very well. he has been dealt a tough card. in addition to the healthcare law. he did get osama bin laden, keeping us safe from weapons of

mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorism will be one of his lasting legacies, and he has done a lot to work with our friends and allies in europe and asia and latin america to solidify and lead america into the 21st century and bring the rest of the world with us. he has got a tough hand too deal with russia, that's going in the wrong direction, and that's not his fault. syria is still a tragic nightmare which i think he needs to have a reassessment on israel-palestine. but this is a man who knows how to use the superpower and set the superpower ship on the right course and in history that will be shown although right now it's a little messy. >> molly mccould you, how is he doing? >> i think its ban tough few years.

over the years he has this need to dissociate himself from iraq and it's been five years. and the there is a need for rules-based order in the world but you can't have a rules-based order in the world without someone enforcing it. when he can't define his own doctrine, when he takes this long paragraph-long thing to describe it, it's proof that they have failed to grasp the fact that it's still a bipolar world. and you have the trans-atlantic alliance on one side of this order. and on the other side you have something that is not defined by values or rules but it's russia, china, and those who are causing problems for the u.s. in the world, and they're very organized in how they pursue this. if you look at the things in the introduction, the syria, middle east, ukraine, there is collaboration on this issue. this is what is happening and

there are these two poles in the world that are vying for hearts and minds, as it were, and we need to be on the front lines of that fight, and we need to use all of the tools that we have to achieve that. i think this argument about military force is sort of a strange one to me because the u.s. military isn't just a military power, it's also a great tool of diplomacy, and a great humanitarian tool. every time there is in rebuttal, why is everyone so quick to use the military force to solve problems because sometimes deploying force is the way to prevent the way to need force. it's a tool that the administration needs to come back to the table and accept that and look at it in a post-direct world. >> we'll definitely talk more about that later. isaac stone fish? >> i also think that it's a bipolar world and i think it's between united states and china and managing what is the most

important story, which is the rise of china. if you look at what the obama administration has done with other countries in asia, with their relationship with japan, south korea, opening up to burma, and reestablishing military base, agreement to allow troops to be based in the philippines, australia, you have a strong alliance network in asia, whereas if you look at china's alliances, maybe north korea, maybe pakistan, maybe rush if you're stretching it. in terms of this bipolar struggle, we see the united states in a much stronger footing in asia than china. >> is it clear what you're countering when you decide to counter china? >> that verb in that sentence, counter, contain, manage, i think it's basically trying to figure out a way to deal with china that in all likeliness within five years, ten years 15 years we'll have an economy the

same size as the united states with a military budget the same as the united states. how do you deal with a country that has a very ideology than the united states without as every other time in history, without u.s. and china going to work and having a declining power and rising power. >> we'll take a break an then talk about the post cold war world. i didn't think i would be using that phrase 20-plus years after it was over. stay with us. this is "inside story."

>> could what's happening right now have been predicted? >> i think pieces of it, yes and no. i think putin was a factor when he appeared. a lot of people spent a lot of time to game out what he was about, what he was heading for, what did it mean that he had the portrait of peter the great in his office. there were pieces that people analyzed and over-analyzed for a long time. i think what putin was and remains in this intelligence operative mode. i think he and his closest friends of advisers sit around

and game out possibilities. the more you've seen american power shifting in europe and pulling back in europe and the decline of american forces and n.a.t.o. deployments in europe, i think russia has really looked for ways to get into that space. there is this domestic win for putin at home when he is using russian power abroad. so i think that has always been one of his tools to keep russian--the russian population quiet, built his own popularity, and i think we've under estimated that in terms of policy in the past five years. >> nancy soderberg, putin does not send his agenda and plans to the white house, so there is a certain amount of reactive mode action that is going to go on, but has the obama white house and state department been handling this well since the demonstrations at the maidan

flared last fall? >> let me push back to what the other colleagues have talked tad about no doctrine and bipolar world. that's so last century thinking. we're trying to direct the world into the 21st century, there have been bumps but i think we're more on track with that. president putt someone certainly a big challenge. it's not our fault that he's making all the wrong decisions for his country. he's driving the country into some image of a czarist neo neo--czarist world that's not going to work. yes, we were taken by surprise, but for heaven sakes, we missed the fall of the soviet union, too. we're not very good at looking into the crystal ball. but since president putin has repeated this playbook, we know what he's doing this. he did that in georgia in 2008, molly should know about that,

and he's doing it again in crimea and i think he's doing it at a huge cost. with the n.a.t.o. forces making it clear that he can't go any further than ukraine is going to work. i think the big challenge right now is what is our reaction to his effort to take eastern ukraine in addition--i don't think he's-- >> let's ask that very question. what has the reaction been? has it been clear, coherent, preventive? >> whether it's working, we'll see, but yes, i think it has. we've put in harsh sanctions in. unfortunately, europe has been lagging behind because they have a further cost of oil. president obama is doing exactly that. we've put tough sanctions o on e olagarts who support putin.

if he were to take eastern ukraine, he would see sanctions. i don't think he's going to take eastern ukraine. any dictator who wants to drum up a fake crisis, which is what this is, to push his polls up at home is in trouble. and that's what president putt someone long term. this country is going to go south as this continues, he needs to change course or the price is going to get higher and higher. i don't know what else is president obama supposed to be doing other than making a very strong case. anyone who wants to send in troops is folly, and it won't work. >> let's look at china. chinese have been aggressive might be the wrong term, but let's say feeling their oats and by extending the air space

boundaries and then saying to the world, we dare you to fly through it outletting us know that you're coming. are they starting to act as a big power? >> that's a good question. to push back on both of what you were saying. when china announced in november the u.s. flew two bombers right through the zone, china didn't do anything about it. that was a clear indication okay the u.s. you guys--china is being assertive, sowing their oats or mildly aggressive, but the u.s. is going to step up and play on the same field on that with them in asia. i think the most interesting question about what's going on in ukraine is what lessons is china going to draw on this about u.s. willingness to get involved in foreign wars. is the u.s. does not act in ukraine this could embolden china to seize the disputed islands in the china seas.

on the other hand if the u.s. does counter act russia in the ukraine, it may send a message to japan if japan wants to be aggressive over the islands, that could cause tension. the three sides are locked in this careful dance over what's going to happen with these islands. i think the importance of them cannot be overstated. >> i'm always interested when people say country c is watching to see what country b is doing in country a and who they're doing about that. there are their own risks and benefits that all get gamed out individually. does china make its conclusion abouts how it's going to confront the united states based on what it sees happening in eastern europe, a place where we've dug in for 40 years after the second world war? >> that's a good point but it is the best data point that china

does have. this is how the u.s. is acting right now. yes, things are different in ukraine. it's not the same treaty alliance with ukraine. it's not part of n.a.t.o. japan is a much more important ahigh school of the united states. the--japan is a much more important ally of the united states. okay, we're going to look at what is happening in ukraine. this is valuable information, and then taking account of a host of other factors. a lot of them domestic. just like with the u.s. ukraine, china's decision vis-a-vis, japan is domestic affairs. there is a lot of grassroots hatred towards the japanese. >> we're going to take a short break and then a look at the ledger, the various places in the world that the obama administration might be happy to brag about or bring up at

dinner. this is "inside story."

>> welcome back to inside story. on this edition of the program we're talking about obama's foreign policy, now i wanting to the list of hot spots the president is dealing with. when we look at the nuclear arena, ambassador, the obama administration came to washington with north korea having the bomb, but iran not having it. pretty good that they still don't, and actually maybe willing to talk about it? >> actually the issue on a broader level of nuclear proliferation is one of obama's milestone achievements and gets absolutely no mention. he has this cut off of material that is lock down of what makes nuclear weapons, and keeping it out of the hands of terrorist, which is pretty amazing, working

with russia in even all this mess going on, the talks are continuing, and we're continue to go lower our nuclear arsenal, keeping weapons locked up. north korea occasionally throws hissy fits that will keep them in power. that's not going to change. and iran is very interesting. there are talks going on and it looks like there is a reasonable chance that the iranians would actually be willing to enter talks to put the nuclear genie out of their equation. in the case of iran, no one trusts them and the talks will verify it. this is one of the hopeful accomplishments of this administration. >> the president dead set getting the united states out of afghanistan and iraq. we're out of iraq, we're on our way out of afghanistan.

mission kind of accomplished? what kind of places is the united states leaving behind? >> i don't know too much about what's is going on in afghanistan and iraq. i think it's a good strategic decision to move out of these countries which in the long term are not important for america's place in the world. yes, they present domestic threat in the form of terrorism as we saw in 9/11, but what is going on in asia is much more important for america's long term stability. north korea is going to be difficult. it's always been difficult. the world's most opaque country. we talk about not predicting the fall of the soviet unity, kim jong-un executing his uncle. >> will china lose from north korea. >> i think they lose more than they gain. on the other hand north korea is a great excuse for japan and the

united states and south korea to militarize. japan makes it clear when they increase defense spending, when they buy some expensive new toys that it's for north korea. they're trying not to say anything about china, and this is actually a pretty good fig leaf for that. >> muammar qaddafi was a mess today. assad is still in power, but the nuclear--the chemical arsenal is being dismantled. do you give him a b-minus? how do you score a very tough part of the world right now? >> i think on the middle east policies there have been ups and downs. i don't think anyone will argue that the deal to get the chemical weapons out of syria is a bad thing. bui think what you see in the

middle east with egypt, syria, with some of the other things going on, the countries that are not actively democratizing, let's put it that way are testing the u.s. in various ways and testing western power in various ways because i think they can. the pivot to asia you see a problem with this administration that the president has been very defensive in responding that they can only pay attention to one thing at a time and they fail at keeping many irons in the fire. i think the countries in the world that want to test the united states understand this, and they're all pushing at the same time, and we do drop balls. i think there is concern that there are whole areas of the world that we're not paying attention to. >> molly, nance,y, isaac, thank you all for being with me. this brings us to the end of this edition of "inside story." thanks for joining us. the program may be over but the conversation continues.

look for us on twitter. look for us on facebook. take it ease. see you next time. i'm ray suarez. i think one of the big things where we have to recognize that we are complicit. i am only talking about the negatives here because i think we have far too comfort addicted >> his perform applications on screen have made him one of hollywood's most respected act orders. oscar freedom? >> i think the press needs to have absolutely freedom. the whole culture needs to