THE majority of Americans spoke for Mr. Bush on November 2.51 per cent gave him a second term in the White House. Although America still remains divided in the choice of their leader, the world is however near unanimous in whom it would have liked to have seen in the White House.

For Mr. Bush, the redeeming feature of this election is that it has erased the stigma of "unelected" president that he carried with him for the last four years. Whereas it was Al Gore who won more popular votes, Mr. Bush triumphed in the Electoral College by a slender margin of 538 votes in Florida in 2000, thanks to his brother Jeb Bush and the US Supreme Court.

The 2004 popular vote has given absolute majority to Mr. Bush, but the margin is slim. In fact, the margin of popular vote for an incumbent president is the smallest since Woodrow Wilson's in 1916. But Mr. Bush won more votes than any other presidential candidate in US history. The enlargement of the Republican share of the Senate is the icing on the cake for Mr. Bush and the Republi- can Party.

The international reaction to Bush's victory has varied from brazen accolades to utter sadness, depending on which part of the globe the reaction came from, but more importantly, on how milch it was benefited or otherwise by the Bush regime. In the Arab world, where it matters most, to quote AFP: "There was widespread dismay among Arabs, that four more years under BuSh could fuel wider chaos and bloodshed in the Middle East."

One remembers quite vividly the pundits putting Mr. Bush in the ranks of the one term presidents following the 2000 election. What is it that gave Mr. Bush both a popular majority as well as the Electoral College vote, something that even Ginton did not manage to get?

The post-mortem of Kerry defeat commenced no sooner than the challenger conceded to the incumbent. While for the Democrats it is essential to go into the whys and the wherefores of Kerry’s defeat and indulge in some soul searching, for the general observers several things have been made crystal clear, although the jury is still out on whether it was domestic social-economic issues or whether it was foreign issues, more specifically the issue of terrorism, that fetched the votes for Mr. Bush.

First, the Bush victory will be seen as a mandate for his domestic and foreign policy. This is a cause for apprehension as well as optimism.

Second, there is a "new moral order" in the US predicated on religious and scriptural diktats, a feature that would automatically condemn anyone in a country like Bangladesh, for example, following such a course, to the ranks of the irredeemable fundamentalists. The manner in which religion was played up in this campaign gave the word "liberal" the most pejorative slant. Thus, gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research were

painted with a scriptural brush, and quite effectively too, drawing the Evangelicals or "values voters" to the polls.

Third, for the electorate, security and the instinct for selfpreservation dominated other factors. An exit poll conducted by the National Election Pool, a consortium of US media outlets, showed that 75 per cent feared another terrorist attack and 18 per cent were motivated by terrorism to vote. It was made quite clear that fear fixation, if exploited, would fetch votes for whoever could infuse fear in the minds of the electorate and appear at the same time to be better equipped to provide necessary security to them. Bush was clearly a step ahead in this regard.

Our main purpose is not to dissect the causes of Kerry defeat but to look into the next four years of Mr. Bush, particularly in the foreign policy realm. However, to put the matter in perspective, it may be relevant to reflect on what Kerry's foreign policy might have been had he won.

US foreign policy is pegged on two predominant stakes. One is Israel and the other the interest of the big US corporate bodies. And, in spite of the fact that analysts are divided on the issue, it can be asserted that the bitterly fought 2004 presidential campaign was primar-ilyon foreign policy and securi ty.

Thus, while Kerry had supported

the war in Iraq it was perhaps the manner of the conduct of the war that he had taken issue with. Therefore, the removal of Saddam, was for him a necessary and essential act because it "ensured the safety and security of Israel." That is. exactly what he said in the second presidential debate. It is, therefore, hardly likely that Kerry would have been able to steer clear of the Israel lobby, both at home and abroad, i.n formulating his Middle East policy. Israel would have been the focus of Kerry's foreign and security policy, dictated not as much by ethics or principles, as by the strong Israeli Lobby that calls the shots in Washington. It is also difficult to see how Kerry would have been able to extricate the US from the Iraq imbroglio that it finds itself in.

What does the world expect of America and Mr. Bush now that he has got the mandate of his people? For one thing the woud expects America under Mr. Bush not to throw its weight about.

Mr. Bush has received the endorsement of his people, but endorsement cuts both ways. While, on the one hand, it frees the incumbent of many constraints, on the other it provides him the extraordinary opportunity to seize .the chance to reach out, something that was anathema to Mr. Bush because of his go it alone policy. Being a second term president he is in a unique position to embark

upon measures without constraints since he does not have to look over his shoulder for the next election; he does not have to worry about his "rendezvous with the electorate," so to speak.

There are two sides to this issue also. There is the chance that, being emboldened by the mandate, a more aggressive foreign policy may be formulated. On the other hand we might see a toning down and a more traditional approach in the US relationship with the world. According to one analyst, "On the one hand is the theory that, chastened by the experience of Iraq, the second administration will be much more restrained and will resemble the traditional Republican foreign polices of years past. Then there's the opposite view, that the president and his neoconservative advisers will be emboldened to interpret this election as a mandate and will be even more aggressive about pursuing their goals." Going by the events in Fallujah and the tenor of Mr. Powell's recent remarks to the press, the latter course is the more likely to be adopted by Mr. Bush.

There are currently several issues of import that Mr. Bush will have to address. The Iraq issue will need clear articulation of his exit strategy. He will have to display boldness in dealing with the Middle East. It will just not do for him to give green signals to Israel to indulge in acts that are or will be in violation of international laws. He has to mend fences with Europe to make his policies acceptable internationally.

In his first tenure, Mr. Bush managed to divide the world; diplomacy was accorded a low priority and brazen projection of power was resorted to. The dichotomy that Mr. Bush faces is whether to reach out and restore the reputation of his country as a honest broker or continue on his path of going it alone. Having indulged in two major military undertakings that occupied the greater part of his first tenure, it should dawn on him that he too needs friends.

Emboldened by his mandate Mr. Bush may feel that he does not have time for the rest of the world. If that were to be the case Mr. Bush may well discover before his second term is out that the rest of the world does not have time for him.

For those who take Bush victory as a bad news the good news for them is that he can't run for a third term!

The author Is Editor, Defense and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.