America's foreign policy after the November election

The next US President, whoever he or she may be, has a golden opportunity to restore America's image and credibility in the world and to reshape the country's foreign policy. After eight years of the Bush administration, America, and indeed the whole world, is crying out for a new sense of direction from the White House in international affairs.

Of course, this is not to say that everything has to change in US foreign policy or that the Bush administration has done nothing right in this area. US engagement in Afghanistan (which admittedly needs to be fine-tuned), American support for Nato expansion, containment of North Korea as well as co-operation with the EU and UN over the Iranian nuclear issue are some examples of the more positive aspects of American foreign policy under President Bush.

One also has to keep in mind the very difficult situation Mr Bush found himself in after the September 11 attacks, which killed more people than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Having said that, however, I think it is correct to say that America's international prestige has been damaged under President Bush, who probably has the least impressive foreign policy record of any post-war US president.

The strategic blunders carried out in the Iraq war, without doubt America's biggest foreign policy fiasco, to give just one example, will give historians plenty to write about for a very long time. Mr Bush is also the most unilateralist president since World War II.

There are indeed many aspects of US foreign policy under George Bush that are flawed and which need reshaping under a new president. Some change will be able to take place almost immediately, even if it is of a symbolic nature; other change, such as a new direction in Iraq, is more complicated and will take a while to bring about. Given the current situation in Iraq, there are certainly no easy answers to this conflict.

Although we cannot expect radical change, the new president, whether it is Barack Obama, John McCain (who also has foreign policy differences with the Bush administration) or Hillary Clinton, will be able to open a new chapter in US foreign policy simply by not being George Bush and also by taking some immediate steps which will send out the right signals to the international community and which ultimately will serve America's long-term interests.

These could include setting a target date for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, a ban on all types of torture, the closure of the CIA's secret prisons in various countries, genuine international co-operation on climate change (which won't be easy if Americans believe this will lead to job losses) and America joining the International Criminal Court.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of President Bush's foreign policy has been his attitude to the Middle East peace process. I believe the war on terrorism and Islamic extremism has had too great an influence on Mr Bush's Middle East policy. Since Israel and the US are key allies in this war, Mr Bush more or less gave Israel a carte blanche to do as its pleases in its dealings with the Palestinians.

This led to more Israeli settlements being built on occupied Arab land in the West Bank and repeated Israeli military incursions against the Palestinians. This is not to say that the Palestinians are faultless, but the fact remains that under the Bush administration the US has not been considered an honest broker by the Arab states. Furthermore, Mr Bush's support for a Palestinian state has turned out to be just empty words.

It is no exaggeration to say that of all the post-war US presidents Mr Bush has been the least engaged in the Middle East peace process. The next president will not - and should not - turn his or her back on Israel, but what is very badly needed is a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. A Palestinian state is certainly in America's long-term interest as it will lead to more peace and stability in the region.

The next US president will inherit a difficult situation in Iraq, where no matter how flawed the arguments were for invading the country, and no matter how badly the Bush administration bungled the aftermath of the war, an American withdrawal at this point in time could lead to catastrophic consequences.

Republican candidate John McCain has said that if necessary the US will remain engaged in Iraq for 100 years (a risky statement, politically,) while both Obama and Clinton say they favour a withdrawal that will start in 2009 but, understandably, are not clear about when the withdrawal will be complete. So Iraq will remain a huge challenge for which there are no easy answers but difficult choices ahead.

The new president will also have to review America's war on terror strategy and examine why the battle for the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims has not been won. He or she will have to consider engaging directly with Iran (criticised by McCain as appeasement) to help bring about stability in Iraq and Lebanon and to resolve the Iranian nuclear question.

Most important of all, the new president must take this opportunity to mend fences and to make America a force for good in this world.