When a country has a complicated, problematic and history-burdened relationship with another nation — as China has with Japan — one would anticipate strained ties at best. Why, then, has Chinese President Hu Jintao undertaken a state visit to Tokyo?

Because Beijing understands the potential of persistent, long-term efforts. Such an approach yields far better results than confrontation or avoidance —with Japan or any other country. Hu's savvy strategy also offers a useful lesson to the next American president. If he or she fails to expand the creative U.S. engagement of China, Japan and other Asian countries, American influence in that region surely will decline.

Now, I am not suggesting that Washington gather up all of its political, economic and strategic marbles, and rush to play exclusively in Asia, abandoning traditional partners such as Europe along the way. I happen to believe that several powerful players, including Europe, will have a hand in shaping the future world.

Clearly, though, Washington must elevate Asia to a higher policy priority. For example, the next president's "must-attend" events, as Kishore Mahbubani describes them in the May 2008 issue of Current History (www.currenthistory.com), should include early and regular visits to places such as Beijing and Tokyo.

Mahbubani, the dean of the public policy school at the National University of Singapore, as well as the author of "The New Asian Hemisphere," provides some compelling food for thought. For most of the last two millennia (from the year 1 until 1820), he notes, the world's two largest economies were found in China and India. Now, they have returned as economic heavyweights. Along with Japan and the United States, they are expected to rank as the world's four biggest economies by mid-century, with Washington in third place.

Can anything be done to shore up the U.S. position?

Well, as Mahbubani correctly indicates, America still has a reservoir of good will across much of Asia. That positive reality largely stems from Washington's advocacy of a rules-based world order after World War II, which has helped create opportunities for Asian countries. But, Mahbubani says, the United States also needs a comprehensive, long-range Asia policy with several pillars: China, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Korea and Asia-Pacific multilateralism.

I would echo that proposal and also recommend comprehensive, long-range U.S. policies for every region of the world. All of those policies should have common features, such as a proactive, multilateral emphasis.

In addition, they all should focus on critical challenges. Issues such as terrorism, human-rights violations and climate change must rise to the top of the agenda. Absent a fix for those problems, prosperity, security and stability will be elusive.

Then, specifically in Asia, I would highlight key relationships. Japan, which for years has been billed as the most important U.S. bilateral partner, should not be pushed aside. However, there is room for China and India in that special category of "most important." Smaller nations, such as the Koreas, also deserve greater sustained attention.

So do essential organizations, particularly ASEAN. Meaningful influence extends well beyond the great powers, and ASEAN deserves to be regarded and respected as a significant diplomatic actor in Asia.

Next year, equipped with such a strategy, the new U.S. president — rather than Hu — could be generating headlines and reinforcing connections in Asia. The opportunity to maintain and even broaden U.S. influence in that region is America's to lose.

John C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is the special assistant to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida. Reach him at johncbersia@msn.com.