Asia-Pacific: A new center of strategic weight? - Part I & II

(1/1)

mr anderson:
Asia-Pacific: A new center of strategic weight?

Richard Woolcott ,  Jakarta   |  Wed, 12/02/2009 1:18 PM  |  Opinion
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/12/02/asiapacific-a-new-center-strategic-weight-part-1-2.html

Firstly, why did Kevin Rudd put forward this proposal for a future Asia Pacific community?

Secondly, what is Rudd's actual proposal?

Thirdly, what was my role as his Special Envoy, and what were the main outcomes of my consultations?

Fourthly, what are the next steps to advance the idea of an Asia Pacific community?

On June 4 last year Rudd put forward his proposal. It was his response to major global economic and geo-strategic changes. In the 20th century the world's center of strategic weight moved from Europe to the United States. In the 21st century it will continue to move to the Asia Pacific region.

The destination Rudd wants to reach is a Heads of Government Meeting to address comprehensively all the issues- economic, political and strategic-which the region will face in the coming decades.

It is the most suitable pathway to that destination which he has yet to decide.

He has always regarded the development of his proposal as a "step-by-step" consultative process. I noticed that Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa used those very words in his address this morning.

Rudd considers that Australia and other countries of the region need to respond to this seismic shift in influence to the Asia Pacific region which is driven mainly by the spectacular economic growth of China and the substantial growth of India, in addition to the established strengths of the Japanese and South Korean economies and the potential for growth of countries like Indonesia and Vietnam.

The Asia Pacific region is now the region in which the worlds major power relationships most closely intersect. It is here too that the template for the China/United States relationship will be largely shaped.

It is in fact, the crucible where the interim relationships between the United States, China, Japan, Russia, India and Indonesia will be forged.

This major shift in influence will produce new challenges over the next few decades, such as possible competition for scarce resources, not only for oil and gas but also for water and food.

There are also a number of important transnational issues such as nuclear proliferation, unresolved territorial claims like those around the Spratley Islands, Climate Change, the illegal movement of people's, and action to combat terrorism which require multilateral approaches.

As Rudd said in Singapore at the Shangri-la Dialogue on the May 29, it is important to act now to refine regional arrangements in ways which will reinforce and advance a more stable, cooperative and peaceful Asia Pacific region as this 21st Century unfolds.

There are other reasons why it was appropriate for Australia to launch such an initiative. We are part of the Southeast Asian and South-West Pacific region. Australia is the 14th largest economy in the world and the 4th largest in Asia after Japan, China and India.

We were the only one of the 33 member OECD so far not to go into recession.

Rudd is also committed to a policy of "creative middle power diplomacy".

We already have a sound and established record in acting to promote regional cooperation, the main examples being the creation of APEC in 1989, our role in the Cambodian peace process and in the lead up to the establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum.

As I noted, Rudd's actual objective is to see a meeting at HOG level, of the six major regional countries - United States, China, Japan, India, Russia and Indonesia - together with other countries in the Asia Pacific region, including other members of ASEAN, to discuss in a congenial atmosphere, how best to handle the challenges which our region is likely to face.

There are already a plethora of institutions in the Asia Pacific region dealing with various issues. The main ones are ASEAN, APEC, ASEAN + 3, the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Shangri-la Dialogue. So why should we be suggesting additional arrangements?

The problem is that none of the existing institutions has the mandate or the membership to deal comprehensively with all of the economic, political and security issues that Rudd has in mind.

For example APEC does not include India and its mandate is essentially economic. The EAS does to include the United States and Russia. While the ARF does include all of the principal countries it is widely seen as being too large with 27 countries and it does not meet at HOG level.

When a serious regional issue arose, such as North Korea's nuclear capability, it was handled by a new arrangement, the Six Party Talks, although all six countries were members of the ARF.

So, there is a need for more effective arrangements for the future, especially to deal with political and security issues.

The writer is Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Special Envoy on his Asia Pacific community concept. This is an edited version of the address to the 7th CSCAP General Conference in Jakarta on new challenges to Asia Pacific security on Nov. 16, 2009.

mr anderson:
Asia-Pacific: A new center of strategic weight? (Part 2 of 2)

Richard Woolcott | Jakarta Post | Thu, 12/03/2009 2:47 PM
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/12/03/asiapacific-a-new-center-strategic-weight-part-2-2.html

Turning now to the third matter, my role as the Prime Minister's Special Envoy was essentially consultative.

Rudd did not want to be proscriptive. Indeed, had he put a firm plan on the table without extensive prior consultation it would have naturally attracted more criticism in the region and in Australia itself than his original announcement attracted. Rudd wanted to refine his thinking with the benefit of the ideas of other regional countries.

So, he asked me to consult at a high level with all of the 10 ASEAN countries, with the exception of Myanmar, and all of the APEC and EAS countries, with the exception of Hong Kong and Taiwan, which while members of APEC, are not sovereign states. This meant I needed to visit 21 countries.

I consider this was a very worthwhile and interesting experience. It was worthwhile because my mission re-emphasized, at senior levels in the countries I visited, Australia's ongoing determination to play an active and constructive role in the affairs of our region.

It was interesting because of the wide range of advice and views which I encountered. I also found this welcome because, as Rudd has said, a major aspect of his initiative was "to begin a conversation about where we need to go" to strengthen cooperation in the Asia Pacific region.

In the course of my consultations I made the following key findings:

There was a high level of interest across the region in the APc proposal, including widespread agreement about the importance of a discussion on how regional arrangements might be strengthened to best suit the region's purposes;

There was a strong recognition in the region that our current institutions, as they are presently configured, do not provide a forum for all relevant leaders to discuss the full range of economic, security, environmental and political challenges the region needs to address;

There was little appetite for creating new institutions in addition to existing forums, such as ASEAN, ASEAN+3, the EAS, APEC, ARF and others, given the heavy travel schedule and meeting demands that regional leaders face;

ASEAN's involvement in regional institutions is crucial to fostering habits of cooperation and understanding across the region, and has contributed strongly to the level of peace and stability the region has achieved; and

A clear interest in further discussion on the Asia Pacific community (APc) proposal, including on the geo-strategic and economic challenges we will face in the twenty-first century and how we might develop our institutions to meet these.

What should the next steps be? Rudd intends to maintain the momentum for progress towards an APc. He is convinced this is a sound and necessary idea. He believes the case for modernizing global institutions so that they can respond more effectively to this century's challenges is compelling.

The greatest gap in the present global systems is the absence of a driving center, which reflects the changing balances of global economic, political and security influence. This challenge also applies to regional institutions, including in the Asia Pacific. The G20 is seeking to fill this gap in respect of a coordinated approach to the global economic crisis.

Consistent with his overall vision for an APc, for a regional consideration of an APc concept, and with the outcomes of my consultations in mind, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has proposed that the next stage be a 1* track conference. Prime Minister Rudd will open this conference in Sydney on Dec. 4. I hope Indonesia will be strongly represented.

Government officials, leading academics and opinion makers from across the region will have an opportunity to come together at the conference to discuss the Asia Pacific's future and how best to meet the challenges ahead and what shape future regional arrangements might take to maximize the prospects for regional peace, prosperity and global influence.

In 1989 APEC was an idea whose time had come. The APc is more complex and Rudd's timeframe is much longer than was Hawke's for APEC. The APc is also a larger concept than was APEC but I believe that an APc, in one form or another, or maybe in a combination of arrangements, is a visionary idea whose time is coming.

The writer is Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Special Envoy on his Asia Pacific community concept. This is an edited version of the address to the 7th CSCAP General Conference in Jakarta on new challenges to Asia Pacific security on Nov. 16, 2009

Navigation

[0] Message Index