No one is more eager than President Bush to say goodbye to 2005, but the year 2006 is even more critical for the administration.

The United States, as people notice, began to adjust its diplomatic policy in the first year of President George W. Bush's second term--from the Pentagon to the State Department, words like "strike first" and "evil axis" were rarely heard, replaced by promises such as the US "would respect the Geneva Convention" and "would not violate the International Law".

The reason is simple: the administration has been hampered by circumstances. "Unilateralism" and "strike first", which once ran wild during Bush's first term, were first put into use and test in Iraq, but unfortunately turned out a "dead end". The bitter lesson from the Iraqi War pressed Washington to adjust its diplomacy so as to win more international support.

The focus: win support from allies

The Bush administration has realized that without support from allies it will be unable to attain its goal of pushing the "Greater Middle East Initiative" as well as western freedom and democracy around the world. In 2006, a major objective of US diplomacy is to further improve relations with European allies to win their understanding and support. The situation seems favorable: France, who once held high the "anti-war" banner, has cooperated with the US effectively in urging Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, and the new German Chancellor is particularly making a point of mending relations with Washington. It seems that in the new year the US-EU ties will continue to turn better.

The diplomatic achievements of the Bush administration in the past year, if there is any, should be strengthened military alliance with Japan, warmer ties with India, and better image among the public of Indonesia and Pakistan as a result of relief aids.

Looking into the new year, Bush doesn't worry about Britain since it is always a "diehard ally"; Australia and Japan don't need much effort, either. It is America, however, that makes Bush unhappy: the US is at odds with both neighbors in north and south over trade and immigration respectively. But both countries face general elections this year and relations might be improved.

The key: stabilize situation in the Middle East

The US will keep close watch on the Middle East and put more efforts to push forward the Israel-Palestine talks. Condoleezza Rice's visit to this region, during which she persuaded Israel to open the Rafah border crossing, is thought a diplomatic success. But whether the talks can be reopened depends on election results of both parties at the year beginning. For the US, even if the "roadmap" is restarted under its push, breakthrough is still hard to make considering tough questions as Palestine status, return of Palestinian refugees and West Bank settlements, and, particularly, the US pro-Israel policy, which lends Israel a backbone and unwillingness to comprise.

But the Israel-Palestine conflict is an old nut to crack on which people have lost much patience and expectation. The real test to US diplomacy this year is still the Iraqi situation. In the latter half of 2005 the US mainstream opinion reversed when the majority of the public turned from war supporters to protestors. Bush for the first time acknowledged his personal responsibility in launching the war based on faulted intelligence, and admitted mistake and malfunction in Iraq strategy, saying the government was making adjustments. As a result, Iraqi troops would take more patrol and combat tasks, and, in an effort to win local people's heart, economic reconstruction would focus on medium-and-small sized projects that require less investment yet benefit people quickly and more directly.

The smooth Iraqi general elections doubtlessly gave Bush a boost, whose public approval rate had been fairly low but returned to above 40 percent in the latest survey. But the task remains arduous: will power distribution in the new government satisfy minority Sunni Arabs? Will the new parliament and government led by Shi'ite Islamists and Kurds be ready to compromise in constitution revision so that all sides find it acceptable? All these suggest political wrestles. The US intention is to urge the new government to try its best to guarantee rights and interests of the minority, so as to smooth over the rebellion and anti-US feelings of the Sunnis. But a more important yet unmentioned goal is to prevent the new government from drawing itself too near to Iran. All these are challenges the US faces in Iraq in the new year.

The bottom line: maintain domination of the only superpower

2005 can be said the most unfortunate year for the Bush administration. Perhaps no one is more eager to say goodbye to it than the president, but the year 2006 is even more critical.

Bush's luck this year depends very much on the trend in Iraq: he will be caught in a dilemma and become a lame duck earlier if disorder continues or even evolves into a civil war, but will reap his biggest political capital if security and stability descend, and in that case the US unilateralism would surge even higher.

The US will exert greater pressure on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and Iran. But given the Iraqi situation and anti-war protests at home, the US "threat to use force" has almost lost power, a fact reflected in the tougher stance of Iran and the DPRK. So Washington would particularly fall back on its European allies and cooperation from Russia, China and other countries in a hope to solve the question via multilateral diplomacy and international pressure.

For sure, the US diplomatic adjustment towards the multilateral end by no means indicates any change in its strategic objectives. To ruin the nuclear plans in Iran and the DPRK, build Iraq into a "democracy" example and forge ahead with the "Greater Middle East Initiative", push forward values as "democracy" and "freedom" in world scale, and consolidate the US domination as the sole superpower--all these remain ultimate goals in Bush's second term that must be obtained at any cost.

This analysis by Li Xuejiang, People's Daily correspondent in the United States, is carried on the seventh page of People's Daily, Jan.6, and is translated by People's Daily Online.