PM Manmohan Singh?s foreign travels seem to be determined by the international calendar of multilateral meetings rather than the imperatives of India?s own bilateral engagement with key nations in the neighbourhood and beyond.
In the four months since the general elections, the PM has travelled to the SCO and Bric summits at Yekaterinburg in Russia and the Non-Aligned Summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt. This week he will be at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, US. Next month, he will head to Bangkok for the annual East Asian Summit. In contrast, there have been few bilateral visits defined by India?s own foreign policy priorities.
Mercifully the PM has avoided travelling to that annual talk-fest at New York at the UN General Assembly, where the input-output ratio is probably one of the worst at any organisation of any kind.
Thanks to the return of the Democratic Party and its liberal internationalists to power in Washington, the rhetoric in New York will soar this week. The very presence of President Barack Obama will be hailed as the burial of American unilateralism and a triumphant return of multilateralism.
Sceptics, however, recall the essence of American liberal understanding on the subject summed up by another Democratic Administration led by Bill Clinton: ?multilateralism where convenient; unilateralism where necessary?. A weakened America certainly needs a little more multilateralism these days; that in no way will curb the American enthusiasm for unilateralism in specific areas.
Since the days of Nehru, Indian leaders loved posturing on global issues and her diplomats revelled in the fine art of drafting multilateral declarations. One would have thought that after Pokharan nuclear tests, India had recalibrated its understanding of the relationship between power and principle.
But the PM?s unending multilateral summitry and the seeming American emphasis on collective approaches to the reconstruction of the international financial architecture, mitigation of global warming and the promotion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation appear to have put a new premium on ?global institutionalism?.
Some in Delhi delude themselves that being part of the G-20 marks India?s arrival on the global stage. Others in India can?t resist the old temptations on posturing against the West on economic and environmental issues in pursuit of presumed brownie points at home.
Even as our friendly Asian neighbour China sharply circumscribes India?s room for manoeuvre on the global stage (remember their effort to prevent India?s nuclear liberation at the Nuclear Suppliers Group late last year), many in India would want to make Delhi a ?useful idiot? for Beijing on multilateral issues.
As Chinese delegates cut back-room deals with those from the US, India is quite eager to take bows on the front stage as the wrecker-in-chief at multilateral forums. That brings us to the central theme of world politics this autumn: the relative decline of the US and the rapid rise of China.
What matters most from now on is not the collective chatter at the UN and the G-20 but the kind of arrangements that Washington and Beijing work out bilaterally in the context of changing balance of economic and political power.
Whether it is global finance, international trade or carbon emission control, the competition and cooperation between the US and China will set the tone for multilateral negotiations. Last week gave an idea of how this complex power play might get played out between Washington and Beijing.
When President Obama announced trade sanctions against Chinese tyre imports, Beijing was careful not to overreact. As he postured for the benefit of his trade union constituency at home, Obama also signalled Beijing of the White House decision to distance itself from the Dalai Lama, at least for the moment.
Obama sent one of his closest political advisors, Valerie Jarrett all the way to Dharamshala to tell the Dalai Lama that he will not meet the Tibetan leader during his visit to Washington next month. Why is Obama breaking the tradition of seeing the Dalai Lama? Because Obama wants nothing to come in the way of his successful visit to Beijing in November.
As a weakened America adapts to the rise of China, the political role of other powers too is on decline.
Russia remains on the margins of the world economy; Europe and Japan are economic giants but political dwarfs.
The only other major power of consequence is India. Delhi?s path to the global high table is not through the ?globaloney? on offer this week in New York and Pittsburgh. India?s rise can only be premised on rapid economic growth at home and unabashed balance of power politics abroad.
The writer is Henry A Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington DC