Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s grand vision for an Asia-Pacific Community is unapologetically ambitious.
In June 2008, Rudd put forward the idea of an APC that would incorporate the region’s major and rising powers: the United States, China, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, and India, into a forum where issues concerning regional politics, economics, and security could be collectively discussed and addressed.
The proposal has been met with some criticism. Liberal Senator and deputy chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Russell Trood has accused Rudd of being too focused on procedures and not enough on outcomes, dismissing his proposed APC as “not thought out”.
The region’s collective response has also been lukewarm – the proposal receiving a cool reception from both Indonesia and Singapore. However, it is worth considering the strategic rationale underpinning Rudd’s proposal before dismissing it all together.
There are three basic premises underlying the Prime Minister’s argument for an APC. Firstly, international geo-economic and strategic power is gradually shifting from West to East. Secondly, current institutions within the Asia-Pacific have neither the mandate nor the membership to deal with this gradual shift of geo-economic and strategic power. Thirdly, the rise of globalisation and interconnectedness within the Asia-Pacific means that local challenges can quickly cascade into regional ones.
Rudd’s regional analysis warrants merit, as does his willingness to initiate discussion on the defects of current regional institutions. However, he has largely failed to articulate Australia’s position within the context of regional change and underlying strategic motives. Australia’s commitment to “middle power diplomacy” hardly provides the strategic rationale for Rudd’s initiative. So what then are the real underlying motivations?
According to Colin Heseltine, former executive director of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Secretariat, Australia is fearful of regional exclusion.
“Australia’s continuing efforts in shaping new regional organisations have been motivated by the need to ensure that Australia is a key member of any emerging [regional] arrangements,” he argues. Another important motivation is the fact that Australia’s largest trading partner and security guarantor are now two separate countries – China and the US. This leaves Australia, and the region more broadly, hostage to any vicissitudes in the Sino-US relationship.
For Hugh White, former Australian Defence Force deputy secretary, the major concern for Australia is not China’s increasing power, but whether its power will fracture the foundations of Asia-Pacific security and trade, and polarise the region.
Australia cannot make China and the US see eye-to-eye; but it can create a forum in which its two most important partners can partake in frank dialogue on regional challenges. This is Rudd’s objective.
Prime Minister Rudd, a self-proclaimed China expert, believes the APC would cement Australia’s position in an institution tasked with managing the regional response to the shift of global power over the next few decades. This would ensure Australia’s continued regional relevance, access to the region’s economic and strategic decision-making table, and a means for managing Sino-US relations.
However, there are several impediments to the creation of a regional community.
Creating a new multilateral institution from scratch is, to Colin Heseltine, synonymous with “reinventing the wheel”. Regional leaders have instead signalled their preference for an APC to be grafted onto a pre-existing institution.
APEC and the East Asian Summit (EAS) have emerged from discussions as the two main candidates. Richard Woolcott, former Australian ambassador and secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), has been responsible for the discussions and gauging regional reactions to Rudd’s proposal.
APEC already includes many of the region’s important powers, only requiring Indian membership to complete Rudd’s vision of a “community of Asia-Pacific powers”. Whether Mexico, Chile, and Peru – current members of APEC – should be part of such a community is proving a contentious question. And China’s obstinate refusal to allow APEC to discuss substantive security issues – because of Taiwanese membership – is another sticking point.
The EAS, while in its formative stages, has focused on dialogue and action on strategic challenges facing the East Asian region. Its membership constitutes all members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), along with Australia, China, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and India. The US, while not currently a member, looks set to join sometime during the next decade.
Carlyle A. Thayer, professor of Politics at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, views the EAS as the better candidate, as its smaller membership would be more conducive to Rudd’s “community building” project. Its current focus also suits the Prime Minister’s vision more closely than APEC and, as a nascent institution, is malleable to the evolving dynamics of the region - its geographic purview easily expandable to the Asia-Pacific.
Another impediment is generating enough momentum to get the proposal taken seriously. Richard Woolcott has already canvassed the region’s leaders and Rudd has convened for December a special semi-official conference in Sydney to discuss his proposal.
Along with Mr Woolcott, the conference’s steering committee includes Dr Michael Wesley, executive director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy; and senior officials from DFAT and the Prime Minister’s office. Academics, senior political and business leaders, and economists from the Asia-Pacific are expected to attend the conference; the event presenting the first major hurdle for Rudd’s proposal.
The ultimate success of the conference will depend on the region’s response, and therefore is largely out of Rudd’s hands. However, Australia can show its seriousness by signalling its dedication to institutionalising an APC and convincing the region that such a community is needed to address the region’s economic and security challenges of the 21st century.
Christian Jack is a Policy Offer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and non-partisan think-tank of young minds.