The all world seems to be watching the US presidential campaign very closely. Why do you think there is so much attention around the globe despite all the talk about the decline of the American empire?

I think that the United States is still in a position where its foreign policy decisions affect people all around the globe both from a security perspective and from an economic perspective. There is concern that what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan will affect the trajectory of Islamic extremism, there is concern that a continuing decline of the American economy will lead to a global recession and therefore everybody is watching carefully what happens here. Sometimes you even hear people saying – in a somewhat joking manner – that the rest of the world should really have a vote in the American election because it affects their lives. And it’s also a very exciting race because of the Democratic candidates, a woman and an African American, something that in itself makes for a good story.

How do you explain the fact that Obama seems to be the favourite of the “rest of the world”?

Part of it is that he would represent a new vision of the United States, one which is very multicultural and multiethnic. At a time in global politics in which globalization and migration are raising concerns about multiethnicity and social cohesion people would see Obama’s election as a sign of progress on that front. And also there is a widespread discontent with President Bush and its two terms in the White House and there is a belief – whether justified or not – that Obama would constitute the most significant change from the Bush years.

Do you agree with this belief?

I do. I think that Obama’s background and Obama’s instincts are likely to result in a more distinct foreign policy and form of government than that which would be brought forward by Hillary Clinton. I also think that he would be more successful in trying to bring together what remains of a much divided country.

And do you think he would be better also with the US allies?

I think that all of the candidates, including McCain, would do their best to reach out to Europe and to try to repair the damage that has been done over the last several years. McCain will have a more difficult time because the policies that he would pursue would be much closer to those of Bush on Iraq, on Iran, on confrontation with Russia, but he also made clear in his foreign policy speech this week that he believes that the United States has become too much of a lone player and so he too would seek to reach out to America’s traditional allies in Europe.

What is the main crisis that the next president will face? And, talking about Iraq, do you really think that either Hillary or Obama would withdraw all troops within a year? Will they seek the support of the European allies to stabilize the country?

I do not think that either Clinton or Obama would withdraw all troops within a year. I think that both of them would begin the process of reducing the American presence but neither of them would move to a complete withdrawal. And I do think that they would expect more help not just from the European Union but from the United Nations and from other international bodies and international partners: a greater effort, not on the military front but on the economic and on the nation building front, would probably be expected from the next administration.

But a greater effort on the military front might be expected in Afghanistan…

Yes, to the degree that there is a push on the military side of things I think it will come predominantly in the form of a request for greater contribution to Afghanistan. That is already happening with the Bush administration, it will increase with the arrival of the next President.

So Europeans are expecting a honeymoon with the next President, but they should be ready for a tough conversation?

There is no question that there will be a honeymoon but it probably will not last very long because the next President will be expecting things from Europeans that will be difficult for the Europeans to produce. I also think that Europeans will be expecting dramatic changes in the policies of the United States and those changes are likely to come but slowly. And it is worth keeping in mind for the Europeans that – whoever the next President is – he or she will take office under extraordinarily difficult conditions: a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, perhaps a building confrontation with Iran, an economy in sharp decline, a country deeply divided. That is why I think that expectations that there would be a kind of revolution should be tempered.

On the Middle East, are there any of the candidates that you think could work better on the peace process?

I do not see any major differences among any of the three candidates. But it is possible that Obama might be able to innovate on that issue only because he comes anew to the process.

Do you not think he can have a difficult time because of the skepticism that seems to surround him in Israel?

Skepticism may be the wrong word, I would say caution or uncertainty, and that is partly because of his background and some comments he has made about the plight of the Palestinians. But it seems to me that most of this caution is based primarily upon the fact that he has a little track record in engaging in the Middle East, it is not based upon his pronouncements or his policies.

The peace in the Middle East will be on the top of the next President’s agenda?

Yes, I think that the next President will focus on the peace process: the situation in the Middle east is in a dangerous shape right now because of the rise of Hamas, the rise of Hezbollah, the sectarian conflict in Iraq, the growing power of Iran. It would help the United States immeasurably if there was a significant progress on that front. That is why I think that any of the three candidates would be pushing on that front.

What do you think of Obama saying that as President he would meet, without preconditions, with American enemies of the like of Ahmadinejad?

I think that this issue tends to be exaggerated. The idea that on the day after being elected and taking the oath of office he is going to get out Air Force One and fly to Teheran and then the next day fly to L’Avana is not what he has in mind. What he is basically saying is that he objects to the broad proposition that the United States should not have a dialogue with its adversaries. And on that front I support his position completely because whether it is with Russia or whether it is with North Korea, our general history is that longstanding disputes are resolved through dialogue and diplomacy, not by violence.

Hillary too shares this approach, doesn’t she?

Yes, in reality I doubt there would be that much difference between her and Obama. My guess is that Hillary will probably come around to having dialogue with Iran and having dialogue with other adversaries. She might not come around as quickly or as enthusiastically as Obama, but it seems to me that the general approach of the Bush administration has been soundly rejected. If we go back to the Reagan years or the Cold war years we find that Republicans and Democrats alike were always engaged in dialogue with adversaries. So that’s the norm, and the Bush years come as the exception.

So you do not see a radically new foreign policy vision in the words of Obama?

I think it is too early to know how much difference there will be between a Clinton and an Obama administration. I think for example that Obama might be more concerned about Africa because of his background, he may be more inclined to focus on humanitarian issues than Clinton, again because of his background and the people around him, but it is simply to soon to know the details of the policies.