I’d have to call myself pretty unimpressed by this. I would certainly agree that the U.S. has messed up policy towards China and India less than it has policy towards the Middle East, but that is not saying much. “New New World Order” would seem to imply something pretty radical, like the original “New World Order” that was supposed to replace the old Cold War order. This seems like pretty thin stuff for such a big name. Moving a few diplomats from Europe to Asia? Acknowledging that China is a rising economic power that needs to be accommodated? I agree that acknowledging reality is a step forward, but not much of one.

I would be a bit more impressed with this if you could show that China, India, Russia, etc. were happy with this. If you could make the case that the Bush administration has convinced -them- that keeping the old Washington consensus but adding seats for them at some conference tables was the best possible system for both us and them then you would have something. The Bush administration really does seem to think that just by talking to the Chinese we are doing them a favor, but do they think that? This piece seems very Washington-centered given the topic.

I look forward to static from liberals because I have actually found an issue where the Bush administration has acquitted itself reasonably well.

It follows from this that Bush must be basically uninterested, and hence let the policy experts do their thing in all their wonky glory.

My prior for Bush executing good policy competently is so low as to be non-existent.

Ignore the giant steaming turd in the corner and look at this cute little bunny rabbit...

Ignore the giant steaming turd in the corner and look at this cute little bunny rabbit...

I found your precis hard to read because it focused on method as if it substituted for understanding necessary mechanisms of society; as if how you drive is more important than knowing where you need to go.

Doesn't make sense to me.

One does not get a sense of vision from the Bush team on this issue. They do not seem to quite know what to with China or India. (If they did, they might promote dramatic expansion of Hindi and Mandarin classes across our nation.) And they have no real interest in multilateral institutions. They do recognize that the realities of power are changing and are willing to tinker with some organizational structure to better reflect current realities. That gets maybe a B-. So two questions for you, what grade would uyou give the Bush administration on this issue? And at Tufts University, where you teach, what percent of graduating undergraduates have had two years or more of Mandarin? of Hindi? (just to check if your institution is ahead or behind the Bush administration in visioning the future today's students will live in.)

It follows from this that Bush must be basically uninterested, and hence let the policy experts do their thing in all their wonky glory.

Just what I was thinking. In a sense, then, thank God for the War on Terror and the Iraq debacle, because it distracted Bush and the hawks from what would likely have been a much more prickly relationship with China (remember the embassy bombing in Belgrade and the downed spy plane?).

Ignore the giant steaming turd in the corner and look at this cute little bunny rabbit...

Except you've got it backwards. All eyes are focused on the turd in the corner (Iraq), allowing the cute bunny (China) to hop around unmolested. I'll take that over another cold war.

While I'd rather have neither the bloodbath in Iraq nor another cold war, with this crew in charge, you can't be too choosy.

The attached article by an Indian analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta at(http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8811

complicates your story. I will not say refutes it, but the relations between all the world's major powers will become more interesting.

The attached article by an Indian analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta at(http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8811

complicates your story. I will not say refutes it, but the relations between all the world's major powers will become more interesting.

I'd like to note the Open Skies Treaty with India as another example of cooperation. As someone who travels between the countries moderately regularly, I'll admit that it may loom overly large in my mind, but it strikes me as the kind of mutual gesture of friendship that can make a chap feel very optomistic about the future. Indian support in Afghanistan seems to be being useful. Indian toleration for Pakistan probably helps with that, too. If China were willing to really slap the DPRK, I'd feel great about them, politically, too.

As it is, China seems to be one of the great economic enablers of the world's progress at the moment, inside and outside of its borders, but only India seems to be bringing freedom to the world.

Full-time Bush-scorners can comfort themselves that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Take two minutes off.

Even acknowledging the broadening of wealth and power, it will be an interesting balance between expanding the de jure great powers and the possible decline of great powers. Those seem to me like two different postures- preparing for a larger number of exceptionalist nations when, in the future, the exceptionalist nations may not be wealthy countries but failed states.

re: the new new world order: detente with India & China?

I find the thesis of Prof. Drezner's article to be compelling and well-argued. He makes a compelling case that the Bush II administration has moved to increase the role of India and China in various unilateral and multilateral organizations which grew out of the Bretton Woods/UN-SF 1944-45 post-WWII regime which was highly Eurocentric.

However, there are a couple of comments worth noting. First, it was Nixon, not Bush I or Bush II, who first played the China card in the early 70s, and replaced Taiwan with Communist China on the Security Council of the UN, where they have been sitting ever since along with Russia.

Second, that pro-China policy of Nixon's was an extension of detente--since it was intended as leverage to move the Soviets towards the US.

Third, now that the Soviets are not Communist, but not pro-US, we need again to play the China card in the same fashion, to draw the soviets closer the same way Nixon did.

Fourth, if the Soviets fail to cooperate, alliance with China can be had by promising them border lands along the soviet frontier. There is nothing written in stone about mongolia or siberia or why it has to be russian.

Fifth, as pertains to India, we have long had difficulties due to its socialist character and its leanings to the communists, flowing from LBJ and since. We also have alliance with Pakistan, which makes the Indian connection tougher. But if India can renounce these two issues, we can work with them. I certain see enought Indian professionals barking for work at conferences. They want our business. They seem increasingly capitalist and the education of their youth in our universities has changed them to some degree.

Sixth, if we do diminish the role of Europe in favor of India and China in multilateral agencies, aren't we weakening the position of Israel?

Seventh, what guarantees can we get on nuclear non-proliferation, which India has refused to sign and which China seems to ignore. as a quid pro quo we need to get China and India to destroy or reduce their nuclear arsenals and place limits on their naval strength.

Eighth, going along with point seven, while the article assumes a unipolar world will give way to a multipolar world, this can be prevented. The US can use its diplomatic tools, and the promise of full participation in world circles as a carrot and stick to induce India and China to give up force and arms and nuclear arms in favor of world influence in multilateral circles, as it did with England and France before.

The world will be far more stable if the US continues to be the dominant power.

If new dominant powers arise, instability will be the definitive result. A multipolar world of nuclear powers including the US, India and China can only result in an eventual conflict, probably triggered by an indo-pakistani conflict growing more global in extent, as did the serbo-Austrian conflict of 1914.

Likewise, as did Rome in her later Eastern phase from Constantinople, it is important for us to treat these powers as barbarians and not as equals, and to include them into our empire as foederati, and civilize them in the american ways, by participation in our bilateral and multilateral institutions, and by corrupting them with our economic goods, such as Hollywood films, candies, american cigarettes, photos of american blonde actresses, mcdonalds, etc. We much try and teach them rock and roll or jazz if necessary.

Thus we see in Eastern Europe the young no longer attend church and kiss icons, but form rock bands and go to clubs; they are in all ways that matter, Americans. As such, they are incapable of forming nationalist or supra-nationalis bonds that can threaten us.

This is an excellent article, well written and well conceived.

--arthur j kyriazis, philly

Arthur Kyriazis, i am sorry to ask you this question. But are you some old curmudgeon who was born in the 50's ? You definitely sound like one.

"Corrupting them with our economic goods, such as Hollywood films, candies, american cigarettes, photos of american blonde actresses, mcdonalds, etc." was really funny. was this intentional ?

But i thought "We much try and teach them rock and roll or jazz if necessary." was the kicker !!

Teach people jazz and they will embrace benovlent American dominance. That's got to be a great formula, indeed.

Re Learning Mandarin: I went to college in the mid-80s and took (as opposed to learned) Japanese. That's been useful; not. The then-scary Japanese didn't take over the world. I doubt the now-scary Chinese will, either.

Re Bush doing something right here: Well, I guess he gets some credit for seeing the elephant in the room, but not very much. Acknowledging the fact that the Chinese are financing his war - I'm tepidly in favor of it, but it's definitely his - isn't particularly astute; just sensible. India is similar. I can see the debate: Bush "Should we support India?" Cheney "Mr. President, it is the largest democracy in the world with a very high percentage of English speakers." Bush: "Oh. OK, then."

Re Multilateral institutions: Given how well NATO has done on the front where they "support" us (Afghanistan, NATO treaty was invoked against the Taliban), the administration is right to have little faith in multilateralism. Frankly, I think we should withdraw from NATO. Let the EU have it and save them the bother of creating an EU defense force.

Re Washington-centric: I agree.

Re China as a Great Power: Please. They are a demographic time-bomb. The one-child policy and female infantcide has put them in a very bad place. It's a race to see if China can get rich before it gets old. They are not stocking up on T-bills for the fun of it. They need a HUGE buffer to deal with the problem. India is much better off in this respect - they have children (and those children can find wives to have more children).