Until US President Barack Obama explains what he means by “a new era of partnership” between his country and all others in treating the world's crises, his talk about returning to international cooperation in managing the world, compared to the failed unilateralism that began to stumble since the end of the first term of his predecessor, George Bush, is not a declaration of a new policy by his administration. Opponents of Bush, with Obama at their head, had built their opposition on various items, such as their rejection of unilateralism in US foreign policy. Bush himself, who had dreams of an empire, fed by neoconservatives in his simple mind, went back on some unilateralist policies, when he began to stumble in Iraq more than a year after his army invaded the country. This was his attempt to save his country from this largely single-country invasion, against the will of all of the world's countries. However, the return to a bit of international cooperation during the Bush era did not save his policies in Iraq, after the country was up to its ears in a quagmire. The Bush administration was forced to adopt international cooperation on other crises, such as dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. It goes without saying that Obama reduced the ramifications of Bush's unilateralism after it produced rivalries that reached the point of hostility with some of America's western allies at one point. But the transformation by the US, away from unilateralism, can no longer be considered a retreat from being the world's sole superpower. The crises of the US have taken the world along with it as well; America also needs the assistance of the world's countries to exit these crises. This explains the growing space for discussing the world economy, from the G-8, to the G-20, which is meeting this week for the third time. The world's countries are beginning to share Washington's “love” for unilateralism after it had excluded them from the “spoils” of such a system. Obama used the terms interdependence and international cooperation on several occasions during his speech the other day before the United Nations' General Assembly. This address was not up to the expectations, especially after it was said that he was going to put forward a Middle East peace initiative at the event. Even though he said that Israel's pursuit of settlements lacked legitimacy, his comment that “those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone,” hinted that the Obama administration might run away from its responsibilities for what it destroyed by its earlier unilateralist policies. These comments have several different aspects. Observers, especially Arab ones, would not see this as a case of Washington shrinking from its role in dealing with the world's crises, were it not for the disappointment in America's stance on the tripartite meeting that brought together Obama, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, just 24 hours prior to the US president's speech. The meeting ended with what Israelis considered to be freedom for their country to continue settlements. The irony is that Washington's unilateral policy of blind, unconditional support for Israel is what encouraged the Jewish state to continue and expand settlements and impose a new reality for Palestinians, involving repression, humiliation, killing, destruction and racism. The irony is that the Palestinians are accused of terrorism, as a result of their resisting settlement. Obama says that settlements are illegitimate, after expanding his country's total political cover for such a policy. He now calls on the world to “participate” in treating the remaining repercussions of this policy, retaining his lack of intention to differ with Israel and pressure this country, not even to freeze settlements, on the pretext that American cannot solve the world's problems alone; in other words, he is saying that his international partners are also responsible. There are other suspicions about what Obama wants out of international cooperation, instead of unilateralism, when he says that regional peace talks should take place quickly, and that “we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations (between Israel and concerned states).” Obama is using a style of maneuvering to force Arab states with no borders with Israel to normalize relations, after they had rejected this step. According to the Arab Peace Initiative, any such normalization would take place after reaching agreements under which Israel withdraws from occupied Arab territory, according to United Nations resolutions. In the end, Obama's return to international cooperation is a way of getting around the Arab Peace Initiative.
