Other Publications
Asia-Pacific: A new center of strategic weight? (Part 1 of 2)
Richard Woolcott , Jakarta | Wed, 12/02/2009 1:18 PM | Opinion
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.
What's On
- AGRINEX 2010
03/11/2010 03/14/2010 Jakarta Convention Center, Hall A - Deep Indonesia & Extreme Sport 2010
03/11/2010 03/14/2010 Jakarta Convention Center, Hall B
- Indie Music Show: MELANCHOLIC BITCH and RISKY SUMMERBEE & THE HONEYTHIEF
03/20/2010 03/20/2010 Salihara Theatre Jl. Salihara 16, Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Selatan 12520 - Piano Recital by ADHI JACINTH
03/27/2010 03/27/2010 Salihara Theatre Jl. Salihara 16, Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Selatan 12520
- Ceramic Exhibition: From Trowulan Coin Bank to China Plates
02/19/2010 04/27/2010 Bentara Budaya gallery, Jl.Palmerah Selatan 17, Jakarta 10270
T.Murakami (not verified), Yokohama, JPN (but in USA til 3/10) — Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:07pm
No offense. Australia (and N.Zealand, & Singapore) is a very European Nation with a history of being cut off from East Asia & the Pacific (closer ties to GB). I love Australia, but this doesn't make any sense despite the geographical closeness. I'm from Japan, and feel a closer bond to Hawaii as a hub for APEC, considering the historical ties and the majority of the population is East Asian, and even the fast pace of Honolulu is a old and new cross between Tokyo, Seoul, and San Francisco. South Asia, which includes India to a large degree - is not a part of this, with very little understanding of geographical and cultural ties to the actual Asia Pacific region and peoples. The only link here is the word "Asian" and Buddha (who actually comes from the north - cut off from the majority of sub continent through the Himalayas). I suggest you look at a map (a Pacific East Asia Map, not a Euro Political Map with the entire continent of Asia) to understand relationships within the Pacific and E.Asia. To become an east-west hub, means a better and thorough understanding of E.Asia. For now, Singapore (though in our region - but very separate in identity) - , Australia, New Zealand and.....India have a closer affinity with GB in culture and traditions - and were much cut off from the rest of us in the "actual" Asia Pacific region. Of course now it is hip to be Asian, ( I remember a time when India was considered the darker caucasian, and being asian wasn't in the lingo. Interesting it's taken a change. Labels are strange things, dont you agree?). Matte Ne.