The next president will assume office with a contested mandate and face an opposition that feels partly disenfranchised. The Congress will be finely divided, which is likely to make bipartisan support, so necessary to move a president's agenda forward, harder than ever to achieve. It is hard to imagine a more propitious time for a new president to rise to the occasion and to demonstrate leadership that will unite the country. Foreign affairs is one key area that can provide the next president with a platform to foster this unity. It would be both good politics and good policy for him to strive diligently for vibrant bipartisanship in national security and foreign affairs, building strong bridges to the public and the Congress, while at the same time reassuring our allies.

Although more foreigners than Americans realize it, the vote for the American president is also a vote for the world's de facto leader. Hence the intense interest of many foreigners in the outcome of our election. Foreign leaders are well aware that clear, consistent American leadership is vital to dealing with global issues, be they security, political, economic or social. Thus they would be very concerned if partisan gridlock in Washington diminishes the president's ability to lead on national security and foreign policy.

There should be no doubt that the next president will face difficult national security challenges and crises. Iraq, the Middle East, the Balkans, North Korea, Indonesia, Russia and China are among those already on the agenda; others are guaranteed to spring up. The challenges will involve a mix of military, political, economic, humanitarian and social elements. The president will have to consult and coordinate with foreign leaders and propose policies to deal with these challenges. And while any president has greater latitude to shape America's foreign than its domestic policy, the next president certainly will need bipartisan support to be credible.

What, then, are steps the president can take to improve the environment for a bipartisan foreign policy? His personnel choices will be critical. Particularly with a limited mandate, he should go out of his way to seek the best, most qualified people for the key foreign affairs posts. He will rightly expect strong loyalty from his appointees, but that does not mean he should look exclusively within his party. A strong bipartisan national security team would not only facilitate relations with Congress. It would also send a strong signal to friend and foe alike that America is united in its foreign policy. Of course, Washington's political atmosphere may be so contentious that any appointee of the opposite party would be seen more as a turncoat than an emissary. But this is a risk worth taking in order to advance America's foreign policy agenda.

Although most aspects of foreign policy are made in Washington, the president's representatives abroad have an important role. Television cannot substitute for the insights and recommendations of a well-informed ambassador. Every president appoints his own ambassadors. Traditionally, about two-thirds are drawn from the career foreign service, and the rest are political appointees. Political appointees are the president's right and they can be highly effective representatives abroad. However, a political appointee should reflect the president's esteem for his nominee's qualifications to serve abroad, rather than his appreciation for political contributions at home. The next president can increase his foreign policy credentials, at home but particularly abroad, by requiring his political appointees to be accomplished despite their political contributions.

In recent years, the process of selecting, vetting and obtaining Senate approval for foreign policy and national security appointments has become increasingly arduous. Part of the responsibility lies with the White House (selection and vetting), part with the Senate (review and approval). As a result, key positions in Washington and abroad have remained vacant for embarrassingly long periods, hindering effective representation of American national security interests. The next president should seek early agreement with Senate leaders from both parties on an expedited process to consider his diplomatic and national security nominees. The goal should be to have all key national security appointees in place by late spring or early summer. Ambitious? Most certainly. Unrealistic? Perhaps. But necessary to ensure effective representation of American foreign policy? Most definitely.

America does not have the luxury of allowing our foreign policy to be held hostage to partisan wrangling for the next four years. It is not an exaggeration to say that global peace and prosperity depends on strong, effective American leadership. This does not mean American unilateralism -- far from it. But it does mean American efforts to lay out options, shape international opinion and cajole where necessary. It may even mean American military force in certain cases. But all this requires bipartisan consensus to be effective and credible.

Ironically, the hotly debated domestic issues of the presidential campaign probably can survive four years of partisan stalemate. However, national security issues, which barely surfaced in the campaign, definitely cannot. Most Republicans and Democrats still share the view that domestic politics should stop at the water's edge. Thus, however difficult, it should be possible to construct a bipartisan compromise on defense and foreign policy. This will require substantial leadership on the part of the president-elect -- and a willingness on the part of Congressional leaders to work with him in the national interest.