One of the most fascinating aspects of last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was the charm offensive mounted by Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. They were on a tear to show America wasn’t an arrogant, hegemonic power.

Clearly, this was a coordinated effort to woo the world’s top CEOs and political leaders, who had been hostile to America’s forthcoming Iraq war at last year’s Davos forum.

In a plenary session called “Why Victory Against Terrorism Demands Shared Values,” Ashcroft declared categorically that America couldn’t fight terrorism on its own.

“Perhaps it was difficult for the United States to come to the realization,” Ashcroft acknowledged. But now he said, “We know we are incapable of achieving … success alone.”

Cheney, known for his unilateralist bent, gave a solo address that stressed “cooperation among our governments and … international institutions” in fighting terror. Reputedly derisive of United Nations involvement in Iraq, the vice president sang a different tune at Davos. He urged the United Nations to help Iraqis make the transition to democracy.

How to explain such multilateralist mantras? Has the White House recognized that, while it can win an Iraq war solo, it can’t win the peace or the broader anti-terror battle without more international help?

Of course, the Bush team always claimed it wanted international support, but in practice many team members viewed such support as a restrictive nuisance. A new British biography of British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Financial Times correspondent Philip Stephens paints Cheney as wholly scornful of Blair’s effort to get a U.N. blessing for the Iraq war. It quotes a Blair aide as saying Cheney opposed this effort “at every twist and turn.”

Pentagon officials dismissed the offer of NATO allies, including France, to send troops to fight alongside U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Such troops were viewed as an unnecessary complication. But rejecting such an offer squandered the chance to tighten NATO bonds in the war on terror and strengthened the European image of an America bent on going it alone.

In the aftermath of the Iraq war, the role of allies and international institutions has become essential. British negotiators played a crucial part in persuading Libya to give up its non-conventional weapons. European leaders, along with U.N. weapons inspectors, are key in efforts to check Iran’s nuclear intentions. At some point, NATO involvement will be vital to broaden responsibility for peacekeeping in Iraq.

In recent weeks, U.S. officials have had to turn to the United Nations to mediate a potentially explosive dispute with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Iraqi Shiite cleric, over how soon to hold Iraqi elections. Lakhdar Brahimi, a senior adviser to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the man who oversaw the U.N.-led political transition in Afghanistan, has been invited twice to the White House in the last week.

Although U.S. officials rejected a similar U.N.-led “Brahimi process” for the Iraqi political transition, they are now pressuring Brahimi to rescue the faltering American plan. But Annan has been reluctant unless the U.N. gets some say over the process.

Needless to say, such johnny-come-lately appeals to multilateralism are regarded with suspicion by U.N. officials, not to mention by Davos attendees. Cheney’s audience was receptive, the applause respectable. But many listeners seemed skeptical that he meant what he was saying. (On his next stop, in Rome, Cheney delivered a similar speech but dropped the call for a U.N. role. The struggle within the administration over U.N. involvement in Iraq apparently goes on.)

If, however, the Cheney-Ashcroft language at Davos was a sign that President Bush wants a course correction, that’s a good thing. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, the time is ripe for repairing damaged relations, even with the French and Germans.

“If I have one recommendation to make,” says Thierry de Montbrial, head of The French Institute of International Relations, “it is, ‘Listen to the others.’ We need you, but you need us, too.”

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.