This presidential election continues to see international relations in the spotlight. In the midst of both a war and a widespread economic crisis, the U.S. has been confronted with the reality that we must open our eyes more than ever to the international community.

Even President Bush realized this, when at a State Department conference in 2006 he proposed to spend $114 million in language programs teaching Farsi, Arabic and Chinese; this was called the National Security Language Initiative. While it might have reflected a drought of translators more than a new wave of tolerance, Mr. Bush did recognize the importance of cultural inclusion: “In order to convince people we care about them, we’ve got to understand their culture and show them we care about their culture. You know, when somebody comes to me and speaks Texan, I know they appreciate Texas culture.”

These days we’re more worried about the presidential candidates’ foreign policy experience, particularly after the advent of a surprise selection for the Republican VP slot, a novice Alaskan governor notable for some befuddling quotes about her home state’s proximity to Russia.

Apparently, U.S. candidates have it easy—in Canada, presidential hopefuls debate in both French and English. So, how would our candidates fare in a bi-lingual debate? Buzzflash’s Chad Rubel takes a look:

In today’s Canadian federal election, speakers of both major languages have heard from their potential leaders in their native tongue. And they are sufficiently bilingual, then they know if the leaders say different things in different languages.

Yes, Canadians do wrestle with language issues, but there is the confidence that the leaders can speak to them in their native language. Despite what the current occupant thinks of his Spanish language abilities, our leaders don’t work in terms of conveying to this segment of the population in their native language.

But it would help if our leaders knew enough of a language used in quite a significant bit of the population. I’ve heard Obama speak in Spanish with Bill Richardson, but often these are learned phrases to convey some knowledge.

Most world leaders find it necessary to communicate in their own language(s) as well as English. Since we are part of the world, it might be nice to blend in better.

Rubel poignantly concludes:

The ability for a U.S. president to speak more than one language in an ever-shrinking world would make us more viable in diplomacy and understanding of the peoples that make up this planet. Imagine if we had a U.S. president who spoke Russian in 1972 or Arabic in 2002. Or even a Spanish-language speaking president anytime.

A translator’s job can reach a terrifying height of pressure during wartime. As a couple of recent examples show, a simple translation issue can undermine an entire agreement or add confusion to an already messy conflict.

During the negotiation of a peace plan between Russia and Georgia, a “translation problem” contributed to difficulties in its interpretation. Parties signed a French document that was then translated into English and Russian. Among other small discrepancies, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was vexed over the replacement of “for” with “in” in one passage. He called it “a direct forgery.”

The main linguistic glitch was in a passage in the Russian version that spoke of security “for South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” whereas the English version spoke of security “in” the two areas.

Mr. Kouchner’s remarks confirmed comments by an unnamed Russian official earlier in the day who said the two versions were “not the same.”

“In the Moscow version, the text refers to security ‘for’ Abkhazia and ‘for’ South Ossetia,” said the official, speaking to Agence France-Presse on the condition of anonymity.

“In the document given to the Georgian leaders, it was presented as ‘in’ Abkhazia and ‘in’ South Ossetia. It is not the same,” he added.

The wording is significant because it refers to the “buffer zones” that Russia has created in undisputed Georgian territory and that Moscow says are necessary to prevent Georgian forces from threatening the two breakaway provinces.

At the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a Saudi Arabian prisoner’s criminal trial was put on hold due to issues with the simultaneous interpretation among the defendant, his lawyers and court reporter.

[Army Col. James] Pohl tried to question al Darbi on whether he wanted a U.S. military or civilian lawyer but the exchange was difficult to follow because the translators’ voices competed with the judge’s.

The translators worked in a booth outside the courtroom and their voices were broadcast simultaneously via earphones so the defendant could listen in Arabic and into the courtroom so his answers could be repeated in English.

The lawyers, the defendant and the court reporter could not keep up, so Pohl recessed the hearing until the problems could be fixed.

Translation issues have interrupted the hearings since 2004, when the U.S. military first convened the special court to try foreign captives on terrorism charges at the naval base, rather than in the regular U.S. civilian or military courts.