Opinionline: Mixed views on debate from abroad

The Economist, Great Britain, blog: "For anyone wondering why Mitt Romney avoided drawing any distinctions between his foreign policy plans and those of Barack Obama (during the presidential debate on Monday), this should clear it up. This is the advice he's getting from the Republican Party foreign-policy elite, which remains largely composed of neoconservatives. They clearly realize that ... most American voters are not interested in a more confrontational foreign policy that runs the risk of entangling America in further conflict in the Middle East."

Tom Holland,South China Morning Post, Hong Kong: "It is hard to know which was more hurtful to the 'feelings of the Chinese people': that both candidates ... took such a combative stance towards China, or that they spent so little time doing it. Obama called China 'an adversary' and boasted he had launched more trade complaints against Beijing in four years than George Bush's administration did in eight. (Romney) accused Beijing of waging a silent trade war against the U.S. and of stealing American jobs. ... The rival candidates spent just six-and-a-half minutes discussing China, the world's second largest economy."

Dinesh Sharma,Al Jazeera: "Both (candidates) believe in American exceptionalism. ... Obama supports the emergence of a multipolar world, while Romney believes America must remain the only superpower in the world. ... Yet, during the debate Romney went on to agree with many, if not all, of the major foreign policy initiatives that the president has put forward. ... This may have been partly strategic as Romney moves to the center."

Gregor Peter Schmitz, Der Spiegel,Germany: "If Obama had ever hoped to leave these (Middle East) issues of yesteryear behind ... it is a hope that was dashed in recent weeks. Since the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in a suspected terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Romney has been on the attack. ... Indeed, it appears as though Stevens' death ... has been enough to overshadow the killing of Osama bin Laden. ... It has been enough to keep America fixated on the war on terror and preoccupied with the Middle East."

Gil Troy,The Jerusalem Post: "If Obama wins, Israel does have cause for concern. ... Chances are good that Obama will pressure Israel for more concessions on the Palestinian issue than many Israelis would otherwise make, and relations regarding Iran will continue to be fragile. Meanwhile, a winning Romney will probably have to adjust and show some sensitivity to Palestinian concerns to preserve American credibility on the issue."

Dawn, Pakistan, editorial: "Surprisingly, on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Romney came across as measured and reasonable-sounding. In fact, there was little to separate the policies of (the two candidates). The bottom line: Pakistan's stability is of deep concern for the U.S., but that does not translate into a policy of isolation or containment with devastating consequences for Pakistan's positive interconnectedness with the outside world."

China Daily, Beijing, editorial: "Obama and Romney resorted to the same old blame China song in the presidential debate ... albeit with a softer tone. Both candidates have clung to a get-tough-on-China strategy and done their best to throw mud at China throughout their White House race, so whoever wins the election ... is going to need to do a rapid reality check."

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.