6 February, 2008: Nearly every presidential candidate has talked about the need to either reinstate (in the case of Democrats) or continue (in the case of Republicans) the U.S. role as the leader of the free world. Globalization has put countries like the U.S., China, and Russia in the hot seat—the world is watching them; they want to see how they tackle international issues like global warming, nuclear weapons, international conflict, trade, and more.

Globally, there has been heavy criticism of current U.S. President George W. Bush. A BBC International poll conducted in January 2007 reported that the majority of respondents—26,000 people in over 25 countries—disapproved of the U.S. handling of the Iraq war, nuclear weapons and Iran, North Korea, the Israel-Hezbollah war, and global warming.

Americans are taking note. In a May 2007 poll conducted by the Des Moines Register, Democrats ranked “relations with other countries” as the second most important issue in electing a president—Republicans ranked it 12th.

Though the Republican candidates have been less outspoken about a need to restore the U.S. image abroad, they haven’t been mute. In a November/December 2007 Foreign Affairs article, John McCain wrote that “America needs a president who can revitalize our country’s purpose and standing in the world.”

So, which current presidential candidate would most likely improve the U.S. image in areas where our (bad) reputation precedes us? We ranked the last ones standing right before “Super Tuesday” and here is what we come up with.

Global Warming

Global warming has become one of the most politicized issues in this campaign. The current U.S. posture on global warming—and Bush’s past actions on it—such as refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol—is a major reason why the world disapproves of the U.S.

In the January/February edition of Atlantic Monthly, Robert Kaplan reported on the water crisis (there’s too much of it) in Bangladesh. While in the poverty-ridden country, Kaplan met a local NGO worker, Mohon Mondal, who conveyed his take on global warming. “Come, come, I will show you climate change,” he said. Mondal then pointed out a nearly-collapsed bridge at risk for being swept away by rising seawater. Kaplan wrote: “To some degree, this awareness feeds a mindset in which every eroded embankment becomes an indictment against the United States for walking away from the Kyoto Accords… As the world’s greatest power, the U.S. must be seen to take the lead against global warming, or suffer the fate of being blamed for it.”

A PEW research poll conducted in 2005 asked people from 16 countries which country among them they could trust the most to protect the global environment. The highest percent the United States scored was in Canada, where 16 percent of respondents said they trusted the United States. The average the United States scored was 8 percent; needless to say, there’s some room for improvement.

Both Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have been outspoken voices for the need to address climate change. Both supported the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, legislation introduced by Sen. John McCain that would reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2050. Obama has called for the creation of a Global Energy Forum made up of the world’s largest emitters “to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.”

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain has been the biggest proponent of U.S. action to curb climate change in comparison to his challengers for the Republican nomination, even before the presidential races began. In a February 13, 2007, op-ed in the Boston Globe, McCain discussed the dangers if the United States doesn’t address climate change. “…We can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.”

His current biggest contender, Governon Mitt Romney has been mainly against an international agreement or treaty limiting climate change. He has said that he would not support any international agreements on climate change that exclude or apply more lax rules to other heavy emitters of pollution. (For example, the Kyoto Protocol set more strict guidelines for countries that had already developed, where it allowed developing countries to “catch up” to developed nations before stricter guidelines were applied.)

One of his key phrases is that “We don’t call it America warming.” In fact, the word “environment” or “global warming” isn’t mentioned under his key issues on his website—in contrast to the three other major contenders.

Nuclear Weapons

We live in a world where the threat of nuclear terrorism has become real and, according to many experts, very plausible. We’ve heard reports of nuclear material being smuggled through the Caucasus region—possibly from “loose nukes” in the former Soviet Union. We’ve watched international tension over Iran’s nuclear intentions rise and we’ve watched a nuclear weapon state—Pakistan—erupt in chaos and cause international worry over its vulnerable stockpile.

As four former U.S. officials—former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry—put it: “We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.” They stated that the United States had a “special responsibility, obligation and experience to demonstrate leadership.”

In a November/December 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Hillary Clinton wrote that she would take “dramatic” measures to reduce the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal and “address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground.” Obama has said that the United States should “lead the international effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world.”

On the Republican side, Governor Romney has had tough talk on reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism, calling it a “top presidential priority,” but makes no mention to the reduction of nuclear weapons as a tool to combat it. His talk on nuclear weapons focuses on U.S. security and U.S. defense.

McCain has supported bi-partisan non proliferation legislation, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act, but refused to vote for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists suggests “only makes sense if they feel there’s a need for possible testing of nuclear weapons, which suggests they are in favor of developing new types of weapons that need to be tested.”

International Diplomacy

Early on in the debate season, Obama was heavily criticized for saying that he would talk openly and with no preconditions with heads of states like Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Bashar al-Assad—the president of Syria. Clinton used his comments to highlight what she called his naiveté and lack of foreign policy experience. Obama responded “The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.”

Specifics aside, isn’t the point of diplomacy to make peace, or at least mutually beneficial agreements, between parties that were previously at odds? The cliché goes that you don’t make peace with your friends; you make peace with your enemies. Politico writer Roger Simon put it in context with the Obama-Clinton feud by writing that “You cannot make peace with your friends, only with your enemies.But you cannot shake the hand of someone whose fist is clenched.”

On the Republican side, both McCain and Romney have adopted a bit more hawkish perspectives on “axis of evil” members, particularly Iran.  Need we all be reminded of the “Bomb Iran” song, McCain’s famous rendition of the Beach Boys classic?

Romney calls for political isolation of Iran and tougher sanctions against the country—not exactly what some would call tough diplomacy. He has talked about communicating with the Iranian people that nuclear ambitions would lead them to peril, as he doesn’t believe that Iran’s nuclear program has peaceful intentions, but has never made a comment about engaging with Iran diplomatically to solve rising tensions between the two countries.

The United States image in the world was not squeaky clean before the Bush administration, and waves of pro-Americanism won’t sweep the world next year. But, a candidate’s willingness to negotiate and allow the United States to lead the fight against global concerns like climate change and nuclear weapons will help the United States restore its image abroad.

And who knows, if we elect a president in November 2008 who will advocate policies more in tune with the global community, maybe—just maybe—all those American backpackers can finally take their Canadian patches off in time for ski season in the French Alps.

Email us your thoughts at editors@diplomaticourier.org.