We have already entered an election year in the United States. But it will not only be an American election: it will be followed as a national election in every country in the world, from Asia to Europe, passing through the Middle East and Latin America. For almost a week a little state inhabited by only three million people, that very few people if any could locate on a map has been the world’s center of attention. Iowa has had the privilege to organize the first round of the primaries and became the center of the world for a week. We do not know who will enter the White House as President next year. But one can be sure that until then, the US electoral process will be on the front page of any newspaper on earth. It could be considered as a worldwide election even though only US citizens have the right to vote. No other political event has a similar impact. In the past, even if the American presidential election was a matter of interest for the rest of the world, it was not as followed as it is today. Such an important and extended coverage in the international media did not exist when Kennedy, Nixon, Carter or Reagan got elected.

This can be explained by four factors: the first one is a side effect of globalization. Boundaries tend to be less vigorous as main international events have a strong effect in international affairs. The second one is the strategic importance of the United States. Even weakened by the Iraq war, Bush’s mistakes, the subprime mortgage financial crisis and the fall of the dollar, the United States remains the only “hyperpower” to quote former foreign minister of France Hubert Vedrine. In every country the most important bilateral relation is the one established with Washington DC. It was not the case before the end of the bipolar world. In every country, citizens thought that the US presidential election could have an important impact not only within American boundaries but also in their country and their own life.

The third reason is that this election is a very open one. For the first time since 1928, nor the President neither his Vice President are running for the election. Therefore, the race is very uncertain on both sides of the political spectrum. A wide range of candidates have good hopes to win the primaries for the Republicans, while two strong figures of the Democratic Party are trying to be either the first woman or the first black to be elected.

The fourth reason is that in almost every country in the world there is a strong desire to open a new page and to put an end to the George W. Bush presidency. This interest is also the result of the fears caused by America’s international policy and its overwhelming condemnation. There is a strong hope for a radical change in Washington’s international behavior. Not only the United States has huge budget and commercial balance deficits, it also suffers from a most important and most damaging deficit related to its image. Every opinion poll conducted by American or international poll institutes are confirming this other inconvenient truth. Never in history has the American image in the world been worse. The United States could be a hyper power. They are hyper unpopular. Washington has the most important hard power thanks to its unchallenged military power but it also has a very damaged soft power. Since the image is such an important part of power in modern times, this situation is a matter of concern for many Americans.

One of the most important goals of the next President will be to mend America’s relationship with the rest of the world, to come back to a more multilateral approach and to give up unilateral or aggressive positions.

The easiness of this task will of course depend on who will be the next resident of the White House. Astonishingly we cannot take for granted that a Democrat will be elected. As unpopular a President as Bush can be (in and outside the US) there is still, according to the polls, a possibility for a Republican to be elected if links with Bush do not appear. Some of them (Mike Huckabee, Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney) are even more hardliners than Bush on foreign policy.

All of them agree to increase America’s military credits (which already account for half of the world’s military expenditure).

Hillary Clinton has voted for the war in Iraq. She would be more open-minded than Bush and would take advantage of her husband’s international popularity, but she would not change America’s policy radically.

Obama is more promising in this field as he is more open to other cultures and less inward minded. He has been against the Iraq war from the beginning and advocates speaking with everyone, including the so-called rogue states. His election would really change America’s perception abroad. But only Americans have the right to vote and, as for now, Clinton and Obama are neck-to-neck in the polls.