TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
A strong Asia-Pacific defense and security
In June last year, I proposed the development in the long term of what I have called an *Asia-Pacific Community' (APC)
Change Size
In June last year, I proposed the development in the long term of what I have called an *Asia-Pacific Community' (APC). An APC could help ensure that the process of regional, economic and financial integration keeps moving forward.
An APC could also help to nurture a culture of cooperation and collaboration on security, including a culture of military transparency, helping to build confidence and security-building measures by providing information that reassures neighbors, rather than alarms them.
An APC could also provide a vehicle for discussion and cooperation across the range of challenges with trans-national reach, such as climate change, resource and food security, bio-security and terrorism. Just as ASEAN built a strong measure of strategic congruence within Southeast Asia between many countries of different political systems and, at times, with active hostilities towards one another, so also could an APC over time build up a sharper sense of security community across our wider region. An APC could be seen as a natural broadening of the processes of confidence, security and community building in Southeast Asia led by ASEAN, while ASEAN itself would of course remain central to the region, and would also be an important part of any future APC.
The regional groupings and institutions already in place in the Asia-Pacific region all make valuable contributions. ASEAN, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Plus Three, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other bodies are doing important work in enhancing economic and other forms of cooperation. As part of our regional conversation about the future of our institutions, we can draw strength from their accumulated experience.
That was my goal in appointing a special envoy on the Asia-Pacific community Richard Woolcott, a distinguished Australian diplomat, who, together with others, did much of the diplomatic legwork in the formation of APEC 20 years ago. Woolcott visited capitals in the region to discuss the APC proposal over the last 12 months. He has now provided his report to me, and I would like to outline some of his key findings and where we might go from here.
First, there has been broad agreement on the value of a focused discussion about how regional architecture can best serve all of our interests in the future. Everyone seems has been keen to put forward their view about the idea of developing an APC and, understandably, these views are far from uniform. This is something that I welcome. The whole point of this initiative is to begin the conversation about where we need to go.
Second, there is widespread recognition that our current structures do not provide a single forum for all relevant leaders to discuss the full range of political, economic and security challenges we face in the future. Thirdly, it is clear that no one wants more meetings. There is no appetite for additional institutions. It is difficult enough for leaders to make it to the range of meetings that we already have and, coming from Australia, where every meeting involves not a trip but a voyage, I wholeheartedly agree.
As I have said many times, and as my envoy has stated around the region, I have a completely open mind on how we proceed and where we end up. Australia has no prescriptive view. This is a complex and important matter that needs proper consideration. The clear conclusion from my envoy's report is that there is an interest in the region in this discussion, and there is a wish to explore the possibilities without any fixed or final views on a destination.
There will inevitably be disagreement along the way; this is natural and normal. In fact, it would be abnormal to expect any immediate agreement on such a complex challenge; that is why I have deliberately set a target of an Asia-Pacific community by 2020, comfortably removed from the present, but still sufficiently close to focus our collective mind. Some of you may ask why Australia has put forward this proposal; the answer is straightforward, we are committed to active middle power diplomacy.
It is in that tradition that I am committed to Australia making a positive contribution to the international policy debate on the future of our wider region. I do not believe we can afford to sit idly by while the region simply evolves without any sense of strategic purpose; in fact, I believe this is potentially dangerous. We do not bring to the table a misty-eyed idealism about some pan-regional utopia, by contrast the Australian government takes a deeply realist approach to security. The realism of the international relations of the 21st Century necessarily involves a high degree of structured regional and global engagement to be effective in our highly globalized world.
Australia is also a strong believer in the importance of military cooperation and military transparency, as contributing to long-term security. That is why Australia is building on our already-strong defense and security relationships around the region; that is why we have recently released Australia's first Defense White Paper in nearly a decade. If sovereign states are clear about their strategic perceptions and their military forces, the risk of miscalculation is reduced.
The article is an excerpt of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's speech before the Eighth IISS (The London based International Institute for strategic studies) Asia Security Summit in Singapore last weekend.
