Americans are still welcome for providing military security for some, trade and investment for many, and disaster aid when needed quickly. But questions remain about how gracefully we can make the looming transition from being king of the hill to a special kind of partner.

The EWC seminar produced some hopeful statements on several sides:

All that plus relating to any new Asians-only East Asia community group that may be formed at a conference in Malaysia later this year.

This would not be easy in the best of times, but now some fear Asia will get less American attention because top people in the Bush administration will be even more preoccupied with the mess in Iraq and continuing war in Afghanistan, as well as other Mideast challenges.

The hopeful side is that our Mideast problems should make Washington more eager to avoid trouble and to promote peace and unity in an Asia that wants America to be "on tap but not on top."

More Bali or London-type bombings in East Asia could change that, but for now it seems the terror-issue pendulum is in a better balance. Asians, who often undergo much more domestic terror-type violence than Americans, are generally less preoccupied with it.

None of the three are believed close to a settlement. Yet they were not seen as exceptionally explosive at this time. So some see a certain merit in the status quo as buying time, although Americans are less inclined than Asians to accept that relative quiet concerning North Korean nukes.

The accepted wisdom is that an economically growing China is good for everyone, as long as Beijing becomes a good citizen of the new Asia and not threatening anyone. Responsible debate is needed on pros and cons for U.S. policy, not the short-range paranoia seen from some in Congress.

This is seen in Chinese feelings and demonstrations about Japan, in lingering Japanese attitudes, and in some South Korean feelings about the United States and its military role on the peninsula.

The United States is not immune when you look at some of the alarmed American statements about the rise of China. Also noted as a new element by some, including Americans, was the rise of religious fundamentalism in the United States. This may be normal at home, but red- and blue-state factors can also influence and complicate some American foreign policy decisions.

A prominent Southeast Asian Muslim pictured an "arc of instability" running across parts of Indonesia, the troubled Islamic provinces in south Thailand, and Muslim areas in the southern Philippines. Yet he also said that because Islam in Southeast Asia is more moderate and flexible, that region could be a model for U.S. dealings with the Muslim world in general.

Overall then, despite some serious remaining and evolving problems ranging from resurgent nationalism to pockets of terror to new diseases to the scramble for oil, the Asia picture looks better for now.

I heard fewer complaints about American arrogance and narrow unilateralism than at conferences during the first Bush administration. The region is growing, is more stable and is largely at peace.

Critics of past U.S policies in the region might be tempted to say that more benign neglect from the Bush administration could help as Asia fashions its own way. But that's not the case in our globalizing world.

American preoccupation with Mideast problems now is a fact of international life, just as a preoccupation with Europe was in the past. Now the rallying cry for those who see much of America's future in and across the Pacific should be "Equal time for Asia."