Introduction
As the primaries continue in the United States, international media coverage would suggest that few things matter more than who will be the new President.

But as China economic influence soars, does the country need to concern itself with the identity of the US leader ? Are developments under a specific individual substantial enough to impact the country’s NAFTA partner (and largest, undefended border), Canada? And, already the world’s largest trading bloc, should the European Union be so US - obsessed?

Expert commentators from H&K offices give their own, quite diverse, perspectives.

Canada

The current US presidential election could be one of those seminal events that, roughly once a generation, profoundly influences Canadians and the relationship with our superpower neighbour.

On the ground, that relationship has been reasonably good: commerce has continued to flood across the border in both directions. Last year Canada exported $313 billion US dollars worth of goods to the US and imported $247 Billion. Canada’s frontline engagement in Afghanistan has done much to cement the security relationship; and the Conservative government in Canada has developed a good working relationship with the Bush Administration.

Among the Canadian public, however, the current president is widely regarded as a disastrously failed leader. The election of John McCain or Hillary Clinton would be greeted with enormous relief Even more dramatic would be the accession of Barrack Obama whose rhetoric of change, hope and reconciliation has had an emotional impact on Canadians not seen since John F. Kennedy.

Canada is and will remain by far America’s biggest and best customer and the United States will continue to take three-quarters of our total exports. Canada is prepared to continue to be the biggest and most secure foreign supplier of oil, natural gas and electricity to American consumers.

Some candidates have proclaimed their determination to terminate or at least renegotiate the NAFTA. Canadians have seen this movie before.

The fundamental reality is that, even before NAFTA, the United States benefitted enormously from its free trade arrangement with Canada. Americans would have nothing to gain and much to lose from putting the agreement at risk for short-term political gain. That would be stupid and none of the candidates is that.

Of course, if the political imperative did nonetheless require some form of renegotiation, beyond mere face saving, Canada would naturally have its own issues to bring to the table.

Canada obviously shares an interest in North American security although the empire building of the current ‘homeland security” seems excessive and has imposed costly delays at the US border.

Abroad, Canada’s main focus is, of course, the UN/NATO effort to bring peace and security to Afghanistan. Senator Obama has been the most outspoken in criticizing the current administration’s inadequate commitment to that theatre. A shift in focus would be welcome news to Canadians hoping for greater American leadership and support of that exercise in nation building.

Canada pointedly did not support the American invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, it is a matter of grave concern when the leading superpower loses its way. It is not in Canada’s interest for her closest ally to suffer such a devastating loss of confidence. Whether through a continued presence in Iraq (McCain) or an early but orderly withdrawal (Obama, Clinton), Canadians have a vital interest in American success.

European Union

Roger Cohen of the New-York Times recently reported that he had met Monica Frassoni, a Green Party member of the European Parliament, at a political rally of Obama’s supporters in Charleston, South Carolina. In response to his questioning why she was so far from her own base, Ms. Frassoni answered: “We have learned that a good or bad US president can make the difference between war and peace. A good or bad Italian Prime Minister makes no difference at all”.

While extreme, the opinion of Ms. Frassoni is probably the un-confessed view of most European politicians.

In terms of the foreign policy and security agenda, the US is a traditional ally of Europe. Its leadership is still largely driving the diplomatic agenda in the western world even regarding contested initiatives such as the war in Iraq. Aligning your policies on US lines - or contesting them - is a defining moment for the political agenda of a European leader. In France, the recent change of policies towards the US following the Presidential elections is a good illustration of that point. The US elections are therefore extremely important for most European politicians: they decide who will be Europe’s – partner (and sometimes sparring partner) for the next 4 years.

There could be a tremendous impact on Europe regarding trade. In 2007 alone the EU exported goods in excess of $354 billion US to the United States, and imported another $247 billion USAs a supporter of free trade and market openings, John McCain appears to be in line with the current European thinking. He does not challenge the global trade agenda and “encourages Americans not to shy away from the challenge of competition”. On the other hand, the Democrats appear to have a much more protectionist agenda, asking for the inclusion of environmental and labor considerations in trade deals and openly calling for the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Europe can easily work with both camps on the trade front but will probably slightly favor the Democrats’ views. With the emerging markets pressuring European industry, protectionist views may resonate in the coming years, and a modest uptick in US protectionism would provide just the political cover many EU politicians would like to support their own protectionist tendencies. Furthermore, Europe’s leadership on environmental issues will accommodate itself to a US President who favors the inclusion of environmental concerns in trade agreements.

As our main trading partner, the US has a direct impact on European growth. The next leader of the United States will have to ensure that the US economy negotiates effectively the credit crunch hurdle and delivers substantial growth for the Americans but also for the rest of the world. Europe’s interest is that America is managed efficiently.

For the last 10 years, Europe has been battling against the United States on the issues of climate change mitigation. Today, all US candidates have announced that they would favor the development of a US if not global cap-and-trade programme that would auction emissions.

Finally these elections are extremely important because of the interest they generate amongst the population. The quality and intensity of the debate have grabbed the attention of many Europeans, including some that were disabused by politics or had never showed any sign of interest. This can only be good for democracy in the US and in Europe.

China

There is understandably a global fascination with the US Presidential election, and while this is not lost in China, the focus here is noticeably inward at this time, especially in this ‘Olympic’ year.

As Beijing struggles to craft policy that will sustain the economic engine that has transformed this nation, it must also grapple with unrest in its West, and consider the expectations of its citizenry to stage both a flawless and spectacular 2008 Olympics.

Beijing does not want the outside world involved in its domestic affairs. This simple sentence synthesizes so much. Its primary objective for the US Election is to see politicians who will respect this.

To this end, Beijing is in turn painstakingly neutral, and publicly mum about the US election process.

Furthermore, Beijing has learned that American campaign rhetoric rarely converts to post-election policy initiatives toward China. For example, previous populist campaign platforms – promulgated by both Democratic and Republican candidates - may have resonated with the unemployed of the electorate, but ultimately did not result in protectionist legislation.

With Chinese exports to the United States running at approximately $321 billion USD in 2007 – representing 16% of total imports in that year – this is critical.

While the US elections may have captured the imagination of America and beyond, the differences between Democratic and Republican candidates appear nuanced in China, and their messaging seems overshadowed by a nation that is now enraptured in its own navel gazing.