OBAMA: By Trevor Royle

When Barack Obama sits down with his advisers to plan a workable foreign policy, he will do so with one priceless advantage. He is not George W Bush, the president who has made the US one of the most unpopular nations of recent times. It may be a superpower, but all around the globe far too many people - and more importantly, their elected representatives - think the decisions taken in Washington during the past eight years have added immeasurably to the world's woes.

Under Bush, a succession of blunders and errors of judgement were made: the US embarked on an unpopular and possibly illegal invasion of Iraq, the transatlantic alliance with Europe was almost broken, little or nothing was done to build bridges with the countries of South America, environmental safeguards were ignored, the Middle East peace process remained unresolved and Russia became a potential enemy. Add the uncertain treatment meted out to Iran and North Korea and there are a huge number of problems for the new president and his secretary of state to tackle next January. There are two front-runners for this exacting post, leading US foreign policy: former presidential candidate John Kerry and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

"The mantra for the next administration has to be, Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it,'" said James Lindsay, an academic at the University of Texas and former foreign policy adviser to Bill Clinton. "The new president-elect is going to have a full foreign policy inbox and decisions to make with enormous consequences for American security."

That is why the goodwill factor will be so vital in the early days of Obama's presidency. Following the terrorist attacks of 2001 Bush and his neo-conservative advisers adopted a unilateralist approach to the war on terror. They argued that they were simply protecting their country's interests and that urgent action had to be conducted without interference from uncertain allies. But many of those allies, notably the Europeans, regarded the policy as imperialist and inflammatory. Rebuilding those bridges will be an important first stage.

"We got it wrong in the way we handled the Europeans, especially the Germans and the French who were not only sidelined but humiliated," said a US diplomatic source. "Things have improved since 2003 but there's still a lot for the president-elect to do. He can make a start by getting President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel back on side. They are obvious soul mates."

It was perhaps unsurprising that the French and German leaders were among the first world leaders to offer their congratulations. In Paris, Sarkozy was quick to point out that he understood Obama's outsider status - the French leader is inordinately proud of his roots as the child of Hungarian immigrants - and made the point that, just as few Americans are called Obama, not many French have Sarkozy as a surname. In the same spirit, Merkel makes much of the fact she is Germany's first female chancellor and grew up in the poverty-stricken eastern sector of her country.

Both Sarkozy and Merkel were on well-worn ground. When Obama visited France last year he went out of his way to make the right kind of noises for the restitution of transatlantic links. "The West generally is at its best when it's a meritocracy and people rise from all walks of life," he told his audience in Paris. "That's something that America has always taken great pride in. It is the essence of what we call the American Dream."

To some extent Obama was preaching to the converted, and what will cut the mustard with the US public will be his response to the big foreign policy conundrums which affect America's view of itself in the world. Three stand out: Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East and the nuclear issues in North Korea and Iran. Of those, the first are interlinked, and to some extent Iraq has been taken out of the equation. It is now only a matter of time before US forces are withdrawn. Obama has made much of the fact he wants to get out of Iraq cleanly and quickly, both to save US lives - there are 152,000 troops in the country - and to claw back the $154 billion it costs to keep them there. With the agreement of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, the withdrawals will begin next summer and the process should be completed during Obama's first term.

"The logic is that the US is increasingly caught up in an Iraqi conflict and that to resolve this conflict political will is required from leaders in Baghdad," said Michael Williams, head of the Transatlantic Programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London. "Obama's team believes that if the crutch of US military involvement is removed then Baghdad will have no choice but to address the lack of political progress and the need for recognition."

Unfortunately Obama's advisers know the same logic cannot be applied to Afghanistan, which is still regarded as winnable - but at a cost. Part of that price is financial but the main outlay now will be diplomatic. To win the fight against Taliban insurgents the US and its Nato allies must provide more funds to improve the country's infrastructure, and if military commanders are serious about inflicting a conclusive defeat on insurgents in the field they will need permission to ignore the border with Pakistan in the same way the Pashtun fighters do. In welcoming Obama's victory, Afghan president Hamid Karzai made a thinly veiled statement about this change of tack.

"Our request is a change of strategy in the campaign against terrorism; meaning the campaign against terrorism is not in the villages of Afghanistan, the campaign against terrorism is not in our country," he said.

If Obama is willing to extend the war in that way - and his campaign speeches seemed to support a policy of hot pursuit - he will need all his diplomatic skills to keep Pakistan sweet. Unlike Bush, who told the Pakistanis he would bomb them back to the stone age unless they supported US policy, Obama does not seem to be a bully, but it will take persuasion and large amounts of aid to maintain the status quo in Pakistan and prevent a civil war.

That might be the way ahead for Obama. Whereas Bush used the US's superpower status to act unilaterally and "shock and awe" his opponents, the senator from Illinois seems more interested in "presidential diplomacy without preconditions" - talking to potential enemies and attempting engagement, even if it takes time and does not yield immediate results.

As personal involvement could be politically dangerous for Obama, not least if he were to engage in this way with Iran, he will use envoys to act for him. This could mean a return to the scene for former general Colin Powell, who served Bush but went on to back Obama. There could also still be a role for Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, in trying to reignite the Middle East peace process. Obama has already built up confidence on a visit to the Palestinian territories, and acting Israeli prime minister Tzipi Livni was quick to praise "his commitment to the peace and security of Israel".

Getting it right as an internationalist is going to be no easier for Obama than for any other incoming president. Expectations will be high, but will be balanced by accusations that he is inexperienced in diplomacy. However, history is on his side. Other presidents-elect of whom little was expected on the world stage include Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yet Nixon went to China and began the cold war thaw, and Reagan initiated the moves which led to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union.