"There was a hope in a lot of European countries that the first Bush administration was an aberration, that it was an accidental victory in 2000, and that once we had the chance to vote again America would come to its senses," Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institute in Washington, said Thursday at a Brookings panel discussion.
Europe now has woken up, however, to the reality the Bush administration does, in fact, represent significant parts of the United States, confirming the argument that Americans and Europeans have vastly different worldviews, experts say. While the United States and Europe need each other and have common interests, many fear this will only make the divide deeper.
"The Bush administration's coming back makes it harder for Atlanticist politicians who would be inclined to work with the United States to do so," Gordon said, adding Bush's re-election is a boon for Europeans who want to see Europe move in a different direction from the United States or are looking for an excuse not to assist in Iraq.
"My impression is that the Europeans would not prefer to quarrel," said David Calleo, director of European studies program at Johns Hopkins University. "There's no intrinsic reason why these things can't be worked out, but on the whole these things depend on the U.S."
Strong anti-Bush public opinion in Europe has already forced former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar from office and is hemming in British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Indeed, while some have noted that Bush's re-election helps Blair by maintaining his partner on the Iraq issue, Bush's removal would have done away with a major political burden for the British leader.
In the Middle East, there are murmurs the second Bush administration will have an easier time handing the two major regional issues -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's critical health concerns also give the Bush administration an opportunity to reshape the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
"Already Palestinians have looked into the future, I believe, and have seen that they can in fact live without their great leader," said Martin Indyk, a senior fellow at Brookings and former U.S. ambassador to Israel, at the panel discussion.
Former Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazen, and his successor Ahmed Qureia, or Abu Ala, are the de facto Palestinian leaders who are believed to be in a position to eventually promote negotiations and rein in anti-Israeli violence.
But Indyk warned the two leaders can only cement their legitimacy by making real progress for the Palestinian people and will only be able to accomplish this with help from Israel, the United States and the rest of the international community.
It will remain to be seen whether the Untied States will choose to alter its policy given the potential changes in the Palestinian leadership.
"I'm not sure that Arafat's removal will change our posture, but it presents a good longer-term opportunity to put the Palestinians on more stable footing," Scott Lasensky, Middle East specialist at the U.S. Institute for Peace, told United Press International. "Arafat's removal will reveal that U.S. disinterest and Israel's disinterest has much more to do with the problem than factors like Arafat."
