A generally good article. Some points I notice:
"As Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations argues, if the focus is exclusively on China's rising power vis-à-vis the United States, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany."
Funny enough that I was reading a biography of Nicholas II of Russia the otehr day. It was written in 1993, just soon after the Soviet Union's dissolution. The author was British (can't recall his name) and he put forth taht the world order was much nearer to pre-1914 world than the previous 70 years, with the United States as the equivalent of the British Empire's position vis-a-vis Japan recasting the pre-1914 Germany's role. Of course the noise is much different, and now these same people consisder (P.R.) China rather than Japan now cast as the new Germany.
"All of this means our lingering Eurocentrism is out of place. We should care less about Jacques Chirac taking offense at our latest alleged gaucherie and more about what Dr. Manmohan Singh — he prime minister of India — thinks of attempts in Congress to torpedo the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal. Europe is yesterday's news; Asia is tomorrow's."
Europe is also trying to build up diplomatic, trade, and military focus in Asia, although efforts so far have been rather "dialogues" (read: confabs) like the annual Europe-Asian summits. Asian countries still consider Europe important at least on lip levels, but in reality the only thing that matters to Asian countries about Europe is trade.
Also it is interesting to notice that when the US makes signals about shifting focus to Asia away from Europe, the US liberals, and professional diplomat circles will then wail out about "alienating and cold shouldering our traditional allies in Europe", but nary a peep is heard from them when we watch news about European countries' and Canada etc's statements that they are to focus on Asia away from the US.
"traditional allies in Europe" means our former enemies, ironically.