No one doubted that he would do it, but nevertheless the decisive victory of President Clinton on Tuesday has been welcomed almost universally as a pledge of the continuity and consistency of United States policy in international affairs. The remark quoted today by Seamus Martin from the streets of Moscow after the result of the presidential election became known - that "Russia is going through a difficult time, and a change in leadership in America would not be good for us" - is an eloquent testimonial to the position that the United States must continue to hold in the post Cold War world.
That might have been endangered in the unlikely event of the election of Mr Bob Dole and a return to Republican traditions of isolationism. Mr Clinton has had his own political reasons for wanting to make a mark in foreign policy, which tended during his first term of office to be linked to the fluctuations of his popularity at home and the success of domestic policy initiatives. With the Republicans still dominant in both Houses of Congress, and no certainty that they will be willing to pursue a bipartisan policy of social reform, he will have every reason to reinforce the international efforts of his administration as a conciliator and facilitator in areas of conflict.
Considerations of realpolitik apart, President Clinton has grown in stature and authority as a world leader in the last four years, not least in the Northern Ireland political process, as Mr John Hume pointed out yesterday. Mr George Mitchell has patiently and tactfully established himself as the representative of a government that wants to bring about a fair settlement rather than impose any preconceived ideas. He has a unique position now, one that turns history on its head, and though it is probably inevitable that he will be promoted back to Washington, he has set a pattern for US involvement in the peace talks that is unlikely to lose momentum.
China, the Middle East, the uncertainties in Russia, the proposal to extend Nato to central and eastern Europe, US Cuban relations, relations with the European Union the challenges in Mr Clinton's second term will be remarkably similar to those in his first four years, with the difference that he can now afford to be more self assured since he will not be standing for re election in 2000.
He can also afford to be more prudent: setting a date for the admission of the first new NATO members on Russia's borders, before the delicate issues have been properly aired by other members of the alliance, may have made sense in electoral terms, but it is time to reconsider it now. There are better ways to strengthen regional security than raising expectations among Russia's neighbours and at the same time feeding the paranoia of extreme Russian nationalism.
At home, Mr Clinton faces the embarrassing likelihood of continued pressure by the Republican majorities in the US Senate and House of Representatives to find evidence on which to impeach him. They have failed so far, and the result of the election has shown that voters have not been influenced by the accusations made against him up to now. But the low turnout suggests that many may have been expressing their disillusionment with the present state of politics in the US and their alienation from the two major parties (though Mr Ross Perot's poor showing indicates that they see no viable alternative). This may not add up yet to a crisis in democracy, but the trend is a warning. Part of the focus of Mr Clinton's second term, which he has dedicated to building a bridge to the new millennium, must be on restoring faith in the political process. In doing so at home, he could set an example for other countries where belief in democracy has fallen on hard times.