In the interregnum between the Bush and Obama Administrations thousands of articles will attempt to predict how Obama’s Presidency will play out. While most Americans are currently worried about acute economic problems, Obama will face one of the most difficult foreign policy situations in U.S. History.

So much of the rhetoric employed by all candidates in the 2008 race was focused on this idea of restoring America’s image in the global community, reviving American power and/or convincing world leaders to trust the U.S. again.

Obama himself was widely popular overseas and when he drew an enormous crowd in Germany over the summer, many reporters joked that he seemed to be running for President of the World. But immediately following the election, a tide of racist sentiment washed up on American shores along with the customary congratulatory messages from most world leaders.

Everyone knows that Obama is the first African-American President of the United States, but Americans—and especially white males when the exit polls are examined—are excited to see the change that Obama has promised to bring to the country and are less concerned with his racial background.

But what is sickening as well as fascinating is that several world leaders have failed to accept Obama as an African-American. And furthermore, instead of keeping less-than-glamorous viewpoints to themselves, some leaders felt the need to publicize their racist sentiments.

By now everyone is aware of the most famous of these incidents involving Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who, less than two days after Obama’s victory, referred to the President-elect as “young, handsome and even tanned.” When confronted, Berlusconi argued that the comment was meant as a compliment and then stated that it was obviously a joke.

While it may very well have been a joke, and the media deserves scrutiny for taking the phrase out of context, in the United States, we would call that a racist joke. What Berlusconi fails to understand, is that the statement was racist no matter how it perceived and that it displays an enormous amount of insensitivity.

Moving right along, we make a stop in Latin America where Venezuela’s friendly President Hugo Chavez referred to Obama simply as “black man” while predicting an Obama victory and laying out his demands of the new President. It should be noted that Chavez called Obama “black man” multiple times in his speech and did not acknowledge the name of the President-elect.

For Obama’s critics, this scenario may show a bit of the naivety that some were talking about as Obama’s proposals to meet with Chavez seem interesting in this light. Chavez, who later in his speech tried to connect Obama’s race to that of his country, takes this racism to a new level whereas he refuses mention Obama by name conveying a certain level of disrespect. Calling someone by their race is one of the most primitive forms of racism and Chavez certainly does not disappoint.

In an astonishing dose of reality, the Austrian version of Walter Cronkite, Klaus Emmerich—a 61 year veteran of journalism—offered his racist remarks on television to the nation last week. Putting it plain and simple, Emmerich said, “I wouldn’t want the Western world to be directed by a black man.” Referring to Michelle Obama as a “black, very good-looking woman” the journalist was ever harsher in subsequent interviews and was concerned with world politics because “blacks aren’t as politically civilized.”

All I can say is WOW—I’m not going to comment further on this one.

In Poland, where racism has found a home in the past, Artur Gorski, a member of Prime Minister Lech Kaczynski’s conservative party called Obama “a black crypto-communist” among other things. The Prime Minister immediately ripped into the lawmaker and the party has distanced itself from Gorski, but the Parliament Member still remains unapologetic. “Some of my language could indeed have been open to interpretation, but from my point of view it can’t be considered racist.” he said. Gorski later extended his full apologies to the U.S. Embassy and noted that it was unfortunate that his comments were taken in that way.

Which brings me to wonder, what is it with all of the these world leaders claiming that things are “taken” differently in America than in their countries? I refuse to believe that racism is any different around the world and while Americans may be more cognizant of it and more disapproving and unforgiving when faced with it, harsh measures are a necessity if the world is ever to fight racism successfully. The question of whether Obama or his administration should stand up to these comments is also an interesting one to consider that is ripe with political implications.

And even if these world leaders claim that their intentions were not to be racist, their true colors are certainly vivid in this picture. Why say things at all if there is a chance for them to be perceived negatively? Two of the aforementioned examples do not regret their comments and were trying to convey a sincere message to Obama and to the world. But the other two seem to lack what I like to call: common sense?

When taken a step further, Americans have to wonder how Obama’s foreign policy objectives may be impacted by racist world leaders. For instance, what does it say if Obama meets with Chavez, a man who is so ignorant that he refuses to call Obama by name? What message does it send to people across the world if Obama meets with, or doesn’t meet with Chavez because of his racist comments?

Furthermore, the unknown factor is even more startling. For every dumb politician, there are a few smarter ones who may have similar sentiments yet are smart enough not to call a press conference. Most world leaders will undoubtedly see Obama as the President and not as an African-American, but the others just need to grow up.

photo credit: rogimmi, kaikne