Viewpoints

Bush Wins Second Term
A Summary of Analysis and Commentary from Around the World

According to Deutsche Welle, analysts in Europe say that President
Bush's re-election will raise transatlantic tensions and prompt
Europeans to ask what they have in common with their US ally. Most
Europeans have been strongly opposed to Bush's unilateral approach to
foreign policy, in particular, with regard to Iraq. They fear Bush's
re-election was likely to increase anti-Americanism in Europe and also
make it less likely that more European nations will send troops to
Iraq.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin had openly voiced his
support of George W. Bush by saying that armed attacks in Iraq were
staged by "international terrorism" out to block Bush's re-election.

Coming to terms with the consequences of George Bush's reelection,
French President Jacques Chirac congratulated his American counterpart
expressing his "wish that this second term will be an occasion for
strengthening the French-American friendship," after the first one
became the stage for a deep deterioration of the relations between
France and the US over the war against Iraq.

Many French political figures, however, doubt that the dialogue can be
reestablished easily. Francois Bayrou, president of the Union for
French Democracy, believes that "in two and a half centuries we have
never been so far from understanding the US. America has become more
determined, harder," he states.

Most French politicians and analysts think that it is necessary to
speed up the strengthening of the European Union to serve as a
counterweight to the American model. The French Minister for Foreign
Affairs, Michel Barnier, explained that "the Americans cannot expect
to build, manage and lead the world alone. Our world needs several
powers: they are the first one. We are in the process of acquiring the
necessary parts and the will to be another great power," pointed out
Barnier. "There are also the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the
Brazilians: that's what we call a multipolar world."

While apologizing to the United States because Canada did not send
troops to Iraq, Canadians believe actions by Washington have only
fuelled anti-American sentiments and terrorism. The Republican
electoral campaign was aimed at convincing U.S. citizens that it is
Bush who will safeguard them in the context of his proclaimed war on
terrorism. That could bring with it the bellicose policy that prompted
him to unleash two overseas wars during his first mandate.

It has long been axiomatic in Israel that a first-term president will
do everything in his power to cement his place in the White House,
while a second-term president will do everything in his power to
cement his place in history.

"It's generally common belief that a president elected to a first term
immediately begins thinking about being elected to a second term. By
contrast, a second-term president immediately wants to know how he
will be inscribed on the pages of history books in the U.S. and the
world."

At first blush, the principle - which implies that a history-conscious
President could resort to vigorous if elegant twisting of Israeli arms
in order to wring concessions aimed at Arab approval of peace accords
- would seem to mitigate against Israeli support for George Bush.

While Israeli analysts agree that a new Bush administration would,
indeed, drop the hammer on Israel, it will not be enough to put a
significant cramp in Sharon's policy style. Asked outright if Sharon
was likely to have awoken with a smile when he was told that Bush
emerged the winner, analysts were unequivocal.

Commentator Ben Caspit in Tel Aviv said the assumption is that "We
know Bush, and Bush, at least in his basic instinct as religious, as
an evangelical, leans in our direction."

In fact, observes Ha'aretz analyst Akiva Eldar, the relief that Sharon
feels derives from a number of sources.

"Sharon also can sigh in relief over the circumstance that the
'threat' that former Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas is going
to replace Yasser Arafat, is also apparently not going to take place."

In an election that flew in the face of many guiding principles, the
Israeli prime minister made little secret of his affinity to Bush, who
has publicly made unprecedented efforts to demonstrate backing for
Sharon policies, often to the dismay of Palestinians, who earlier this
year were rocked by new Bush formulations indicating that West Bank
blocs might be made permanently part of Israel, and that Palestinian
refugees would be denied their oft-expressed dream of returning to
former homes within Israel.

There's no question that the chemistry between Bush and Sharon has
been very great. President Bush's standing alongside Israel has been a
very, very clear stance.

Most Arab countries in the Middle East opted for caution after the
Bush's victory. The Palestinian Authority's envoy to France admitted
that veteran leader Yasser Arafat, who was being treated in Paris for a
terminal, but undiagnosed illness, was "worried".

Just days before his death, Arafat "had hoped the second mandate will
be different," Laila Shahid said.

Echoing a generally negative Palestinian stand towards Bush, deputy
parliament speaker Hasan Khraishah said that "neither Bush nor Kerry
spoke about the Palestinian question during their campaign. Bush has
only served to isolate the Palestinian leadership and block the peace
process," he said.

In Iran, Muhammad Muhammadi, parliament's foreign affairs committee
deputy speaker, warned that America was headed for "international and
economic ruin unless Bush is more careful in his second term."

The United States may have gone to the polls as a divided, uncertain,
paralyzed-by-fear nation. Today it's still a divided, uncertain,
paralyzed-by-fear nation, but now with a clear mandate for the state
really to rock the geopolitical boat.

The "most important election of a lifetime" has sent a clear message
to the whole world: the face of America in the next four years -
barring a Richard Nixon-style impeachment - will be of unilateralism,
the "war on terror" possibly progressively escalating into a clash of
civilizations. And pay attention to the "axis of evil" hit list - the
official and the bootleg. Bush II will attack what it defines as
"state terrorism" - Iran, Syria - instead of the global jihadi
network. It will continue to rely on Pakistan to "decapitate" the odd
"high-value al-Qaeda". It won't engage in diplomacy to address the
political causes of terrorism. It won't engage in a cultural and
ideological effort to try to counteract the global jihad - especially
now that Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri have changed
the rules of the asymmetrical game from a religious clash to a
political struggle against imperialism.

Total concentration of right-wing power - legitimized by the popular
vote: this is the new neo-conservative dream turned reality. So the
road ahead is to flatten the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah in Iraq,
bomb Iran because of its supposed nuclear aspirations, depose
President Hafez Assad in Syria, crush the Palestinian resistance, and
remodel the Middle East by "precision strike" democracy.

There will be serious blowback. A new pan-Islamic nationalism, for
example, featuring Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's Shi'ite masses allied
with the Sunni triangle to kick out the Americans from Iraq,
eventually supported by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq crisscrossed
by guerrillas and Iran penetrated by US intelligence, both leading -
plus Shi'ite eastern Saudi Arabia, where the oil is - to a new,
catastrophic oil shock.

And then the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century
(PNAC) - which virtually took over the US government - will create a
major confrontation with China. Asia, beware.

The faith-based, apocalyptic evangelicals have won this battle against
the "reality community". Bush won despite Tora Bora, Guantanamo, Abu
Ghraib. The crusade continues. Osama bin Laden got exactly what he
wanted.