At the conclusion of World War II, assistance to the former colonies was mainly politico-military in motivation, according to a Nobel Prize winner. "During the rapid decolonization, American aid to the newly independent countries had a very slow start and remained, for years, on a diminutive scale with the partial exception of the aid given to the United States’ former colony, the Philippines, which had also, like her European allies, suffered wartime destruction. When then in the Fifties American aid began to take somewhat larger proportions, it became, however, geared to the intensifying cold war and aimed at supporting politically allied governments or, sometimes, to reward a not unfriendly neutrality. This is clearly visible in the distribution of aid among countries."

It was a condition that persisted in the 1960s. "Tying aid to exports from the ‘donor country,’ which had gradually become the general rule in almost all Western countries, implies mostly higher import costs for the underdeveloped countries. Particularly in regard to the United States, items of military aid are often smuggled into the computations as aid to development." [Gunnar Myrdal, "The Equality Issue in World Development," Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, March 17, 1975]

Will Mr. Obama retain the premise of the US-Philippine alliance? What about US-China relations? Hark back to the beginning.

"In the year 1786 a vessel of 350 tons burden sailed from an American port for Canton. She was the first to carry the flag of the United States to the shores of Cathay, and to begin a commerce that has since assumed enormous proportions. European nations had carried on a limited trade with the Chinese before that time, but they were restricted to a single port, and their jealousy of each other prevented their adopting those measures of co-operation that have recently proved so advantageous. China was averse to opening her territory to foreign merchants, and regarded with suspicion all their attempts to gain a foothold upon her soil...In the south Canton was the only port open to those who came to China by sea, while along the coast-line, facing to the eastward, the ports were sealed against foreign intrusion. Commerce between China and the outer world was hampered by many restrictions, and only its great profits kept it alive. But once fairly established, the barbarian merchants taught the slow-learning Chinese that the trade brought advantage to all engaged in it. Step by step they pressed forward, to open new ports and extend commercial relations, which were not likely to be discontinued, if only a little time were allowed to show their value."

"As years rolled on, trade with China increased. For a long time the foreigners trading with China had no direct intercourse with the General Government, but dealt only with the local and provincial authorities. It was not until after the famous ‘Opium War’ that diplomatic relations were opened with the court at Peking, and a common policy adopted for all parts of the empire, in its dealings with the outer world. Considering the extremely conservative character of the Chinese, their adherence to old forms and customs, their general unwillingness to do differently from their ancestors, and the not over-amiable character of the majority of the foreigners that went there to trade, it is not surprising that many years were required for commercial relations to grow up and become permanent."

"The wars between China and the Western powers did more than centuries of peace could have done to open the Oriental eyes...The victories of the allied forces in China, culminating in the capture of Peking and dictation of terms by the foreign leaders, opened the way for a free intercourse between the East and West, and the immense advantages that an unrestricted commerce is sure to bring to an industrious, energetic, and economical people." [Thomas Wallace Knox, "Overland through Asia: Pictures of Siberian, Chinese, and Tartar Life," 1871]

Can Mr. Obama un-couple trade from wars? Moreover, is American interest in China limited to profiteering? Can Westerners learn something from the Orient?

Yes, said an economist. "The Chinese have preserved in their traditions the remembrance of a religion which had ceased to exist among them five or six centuries before our era."

"More surprising still is it that this singular people, in losing its primitive faith, seems to have understood that divinity is simply the collective me of humanity: so that, more than 2,000 years ago, China had reached, in its commonly-accepted belief, the latest results of the philosophy of the Occident. ‘What Heaven sees and understands,’ it is written in the Shu-king, ‘is only that which the people see and understand. What the people deem worthy of reward and punishment is that which Heaven wishes to punish and reward. There is an intimate communication between Heaven and the people: let those who govern the people, therefore, be watchful and cautious.’ Confucius expressed the same idea in another manner: ‘Gain the affection of the people, and you gain empire. Lose the affection of the people, and you lose empire.’ There, then, general reason was regarded as queen of the world, a distinction which elsewhere has been bestowed upon revelations." [Joseph-Pierre Proudhon, "The Evolution of Capitalism: System of Economical Contradictions or, The Philosophy of Misery," 1846]