Will the second Bush administration be different?

This time his re-election is legitimate and he can be proud of his massive election victory. He not only won the majority of electoral college votes but also secured over 3 million popular votes over his contender Senator John Kerry. He also got 51 per cent of the popular vote.

Divided nation
The clear victory cannot hide the fact that Americans are bitterly divided. Although the win is massive, on the election night the result was a cliff-hanger because only one state Ohio (Florida in 2000) decided who was to win the race. No responsible media outlet in the US except Fox announced his win. It was the White House who claimed first the victory on that night. The media learnt its lesson in 2000, predicting Florida victory for Al Gore, then retracted it. This time they wanted to be completely certain before they declared the President's victory.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

If Ohio's electoral college votes (20) would be for Senator Kerry, he would have been the President. That is why when Senator Kerry conceded defeat he phoned President Bush and urged him to unite America, telling him there was "a desperate need for unity" in the country after the rancour of the campaign.

Such a close contest indicates that the Americans are divided. Numerically 49 per cent American voters did not vote for President Bush and he is fully aware of it. That is why in his acceptance speech, he told the voters who supported Kerry that he would reach out to them during this term and he would do everything possible to "earn" their trust.

Cool reception outside America
President Bush faces divided world opinion about his leadership. Arab countries except Kuwait remained cool and their leaders did not sent their felicitations message to him as quickly as they normally do. Some of the media in Arab countries have come out with despair because of the election result. China's response was measured. The leaders of many European countries did not rush to send messages of felicitation to President Bush. Only Britain, Italy and Russia sent quickly their message of congratulations to the President. The Prime Ministers of Japan and Australia were happy to see him re-elected and both of them voiced their support even before the election. Both Japanese and Australian leaders are conservative side of politics and they agree with Bush's conservative morality-based policies at home.

Possible reasons for hope
Since his victory, a debate is raging among analysts whether the second administration will be different from that of the first one? There appears to be no unanimity of views on the issue. However, many think that the second administration will likely to be different from that of the first one in tactics and nuances. Before the election, a spokesperson for the White House stated that although policies would remain the same, "tactics" would be different. The first indication of any change of policy would be visible when the President reshuffles his cabinet, especially the Secretaries of State and Defence, including the National Security Adviser

Some say that the "gung-ho" approach to foreign policy issues, advocated by neo-conservatives, may not attain the same level of importance during the second administration. Some of the possible reasons may deserve mention.

First, President Bush was a novice when he occupied the White House in 2001.

His only experience was the Governorship of Texas before he became the President. He had no foreign policy experience and met hardly any major world leaders. He has now grown in his office during the last four years and especially after the September attacks in 2001.

Initially he thought that he would not commit American troops overseas as President Clinton did in Bosnia and Kosovo. That thinking dramatically changed after September 11. He has matured in his office and knows that the advice he got from his close neo-conservatives on Iraq did not go in the way as the President wanted in Iraq. As a result, it is likely that he will not be easily influenced by them this time. He has learnt his lessons in Iraq and casualties of Americans are mounting every day.

Second, although he may not publicly admit the pitfalls of policy of unilateralism, he has realized that terrorism is a global issue and it needs to be addressed globally with multilateral cooperation. The US alone is not enough to eliminate threats of terrorists who are illusive and spread over 60 countries. The recent videotape of Osama Bin Laden demonstrates that the first Bush administration did not realize the depth and extent of difficulties of eliminating Al-Qaeda network. The US mainland is not safer than before and some say it is much less safe for Americans stationed overseas.

President Bush must have realised that there is an image problem for the US overseas. His unilateral action in Iraq has provoked widespread protests across the world. His policy on environment is against the tide of the current movement for protection of ecosystem of the Earth. Whenever he visits foreign countries, large protests are held against his policy and this is not good for a country who leads the free world. This time he may pursue a policy of reconciliation and is likely to discuss more with the key powers in Europe (France and Germany) before he takes action unilaterally. He might also try to address and remove the root causes of terrorism in consultation with key major powers. His total support for Israel's policy of atrocities on Palestinian civilians policy is perceived as primarily responsible for unrest, desperation and extreme views among Arabs may assume importance during this administration under the influence and advice of the Prime Minister Blair who passionately believes in a just solution of the crucial issue.

Third, legitimacy of action is very important in foreign policy. It is easy to see the difference between the First Gulf War of 1990 initiated by his father, President Bush, the Senior and the Second Gulf War. In the first one, there was a genuine coalition of more than 50 countries including Arab countries because the military action was approved by the UN. Furthermore, the expenses were borne by Arab countries. The current war in Iraq is almost exclusively on the shoulders of the US, both in terms of troops and money.

Superior military might is not enough in a guerrilla warfare where civilians get killed and military action becomes counterproductive. The US has to win "the minds and hearts of Iraqi people" and military power may not achieve that goal. That is why soft power as distinct from military (hard) power is desirable to be pursued in Iraq.

Fourth, in terms of the US constitution, this is the last term of President Bush. He will no more be concerned with winning an election again. That provides him complete freedom to do what he chooses to do for historical legacy. Furthermore, the Republican Party has secured more seats both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate (55 out of 100). The White House and the both houses of Congress are in full control of the Republican Party. This being the case, to pursue his political and social agenda will be like "a knife through butter." That is why many analysts believe that he is likely to soften his policies, both domestic and foreign, during this administration, to leave an indelible mark in history.

Finally, the first administration of Bush, to a growing concern to all countries, has withdrawn from many multilateral treaties, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for environment and the 1998 Rome Treaty for International Criminal Court. The US has blocked two crucial issues, one is the Fission-Cut Material Treaty for prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons and the amendment of the 1992 Biological Weapons Treaty for periodical verification by international inspectors on chemical plants located in countries. Although the second administration may not change its policy, it is likely to have a hard look on the issues and may attempt to address the concerns of other countries in its own way.

Conclusion
In history, chance comes once in life. This victory has provided President Bush to leave great legacy in history. The US is the lone super power and has obligations to ensure that the world become peaceful, safe and harmonious through multilateral cooperation. People all over the world expect from the US to address poverty, hunger and disease of the millions of people in developing countries. The global issues can only be resolved within the framework of the UN, initiated by the US President Roosevelt.The UN needs to be energised through active cooperation from the US and we all hope that the UN will not be a matter of convenience but of conviction for the incoming second Bush administration.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva