It has now been several weeks since President Barack Obama's trip to Asia in November. Perhaps the most unforgetable scene from that trip was that of Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan. This bow created a considerable amount of controversy. I find myself with mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I understand that Obama wants to emphasize that he is a culturally sensitive American president, and I don't think that is an entirely bad thing. Living in another country myself, I think it is certainly praiseworthy to show respect for others' culture, just as you would expect them to do in your culture. On the other hand, it seems to me that as a foreigner in another culture, one is not always expected to completely "go native." A certain amount of leeway is given to foreigners, especially visitors. Futhermore, President Obama is not a private citizen; he is the representative of the people of the United States and thus should act in a way that upholds their dignity as well. I would further say that as president, Mr. Obama is the equal of any emperor or king. A firm but respectful handshake would have been entirely appropriate, as indeed most world leaders have apparently concluded when meeting with the Emperor.

   Also, if you are going to follow a local custom, at least you should try to do it right. My understanding is that in Japanese culture when bowing one never physically touches the other person. Thus, shaking the Emperor's hand while bowing to him seemed like rather a faux pas. Wasn't there any protocol expert at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo or in the State Department that could have given Obama pointers on Japanese etiquette, so as to avoid this embarrassment?

   Whatever the pros or cons of the bow in Tokyo, I think a case could be made that Obama's bow could very well serve as a symbol of his whole Asia trip. This is especially the case in China, to which Obama made his first official visit as president. Because I was deluged with a tremendous number of student papers, I was not able to follow the Chinese media's coverage of Obama's visit to my adopted home. However, my understanding is that among other things, Obama held a meeting with "future leaders of China" in which all of the hand-picked attendees were Communist Youth League members and the most controversial question he responded to was about Tweeter. The meeting was not even televised live. Furthermore, it seems that President Obama did not (publicly at least) put any pressure on the Chinese government on sensitive issues like human rights or the treatment of religious believers and ethnic minorities. He even acquiesced in holding a "press conference" with Chinese President Hu Jintao during which no questions were permitted. Much of this was in sharp contrast with his predecessors, who had been permitted to give public addresses on live television and had been less sensitive about raising controversial issues with their Chinese hosts. In fact, my understanding is that George W. Bush always refused to participate in the sort of "press conference" Obama agreed to.

   In some ways, this behavior on Obama's part cannot be totally a surprise. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, on an earlier trip to China, had essentially said, as I recall, that the U.S. could not afford to offend the Chinese government because we needed its help on important issues like Iran and global warming (I believe she later backtracked on this). It is clear that the Obama Administration has decided to follow a policy of avoiding conflict with Beijing (except, perhaps, in the area of international trade!). However, it seems ironic to me that a liberal Democratic president should seem so obsequious toward a foreign government with a less-than-stellar record (at times) in the treatment of its citizens. Liberal (progressive) Democrats used to like to denounce "realpolitik" policies pursued by Republican administrations (real or perceived). Now that the Democrats have power, they seem to have decided that being "pragmatic" should be utmost in U.S. foreign policy. Thus, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a one-time fierce critic of Beijing, seemed to be less critical during a recent visit here. Perhaps she (and Obama and the other Democrats) are just trying to be "culturally sensitive." Nevertheless, it seems to me that cultural sensitivity (or pragmaticism) can never be allowed to trump certain core values of your country. I hope President Obama will not forget this. I might add that, given Mr. Obama's apologies on other recent foreign trips for putative wrongdoing by past U.S. governments, it is a lot easier to apologize for something your predecessors (supposedly) did than for your own actions!