As President Bush gets set to ride into the sunset, the two men vying for the White House will surely be hoping that come January 2009 the mess left behind is somehow smaller than it seems.

In all likelihood, it seems that the US will be setting in stone a security deal with the Iraqi leaders, which will allow American forces to remain in that country for another three years.

In essence that solves the problem of the grandiose promise of "let's end this war now" by Barack Obama, while it allows McCain to argue that this was the rational policy that he wanted, which as per him will bring the troops back victorious – eventually.

As far as other areas of foreign policy are concerned, there is little substantial difference in what both the candidates are proposing.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have little regard for Pakistani sovereignty, maybe just as much as the leaders of that country have for it.

Moreover, both of them believe that Russia is a real threat and needs to be dealt with firmly, and neither candidate has the stomach for the Bush unilateralist doctrine and are willing to engage in multilateral diplomacy to build alliances.

While the near rockstar status that Obama has enjoyed in Europe and other parts of the world is just an indication of how US allies perceive him to be someone who will prefer engagement as opposed to Bush, McCain's calls aren't substantially different from what his Democratic rival is arguing.

For instance, the following is an excerpt from the Republican candidate's address to the LA World Affairs Council in Arlington -- "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.  We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."

The chasm between the two rivals, as mainstream media would have you believe, is a thesis called the "perception of calm-" i.e., as the economic crisis ran through Wall Street and left the debris lying on Main Street, Obama appeared to be calm while McCain appeared erratic – maybe more so owing to his dwindling poll numbers than the crashing Dow.

Looked at in that light, it is true that Obama has been the one with the steady hand, and it is that stylistic difference (a calm air of self assuredness and confidence) that gives rise to him indicating his willingness to talk to friends and foes alike – which is an important yet not really novel change from the Bush approach.

Even the Bush administration engaged in dialogue when it felt that it had little other option, and considering America's current world standing and the economic crisis, talking will have to be the only option for the new president.

In sum, the change is more in Obama suggesting that dialogue is the first option rather than the last option - but that's more a fallout of the excesses of the Bush regime.

So while the world may be pulling all the strings that it can and hoping for an Obama to take command on November 4 and be the harbinger of change, there change is largely stylistic with one key substantive question left largely unanswered.

During the last eight years, there has been monumental damage to the United Nations, which in 2002-2003 probably entered the dark ages as the US bypassed it to bomb Iraq.

As defective as it is, the UN is probably the most important creation of mankind to preserve the international order and maintain peace and security and the dignity of human life.

Yet there is rather little to be heard from both the candidates on what they would do to ensure that the UN remains at the center of global affairs and also undergoes the much-needed reform process, which has been hindered by the larger powers.

McCain has hinted that the creation of, what I can loosely call, a league of democracies to act where the UN fails to act – something like the 'coalition of the willing,' an unhealthy vestige of the Bush years.

In contrast, there has been little but rhetoric from the Obama camp about the role of the UN in its future vision.

Bush's enduring legacy will be the weakening of the UN, and if either of the men who is to succeed him are hoping to bring real change, then that has to be within the context of the United Nations.

The change that Bush began was to erode the legitimacy of the United Nations and reinstate the old order of legitimacy of power; so if change is what is promised, the first major overhaul needs to be rubbishing the unilateral doctrine and agreeing to a reformed and more potent UN, which reflects the realities of the 21st century.