Comments on K Kesavapany “ASEAN+8 – A recipe for a new regional architecture”, 8/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/08/asean8-a-recipe-for-a-new-regional-architecture/
K Kesavapany states correctly that "as the international centre of economic gravity moves towards East Asia, the challenge for the region is to develop a new architecture commensurate with its growing role in world affairs."
K Kesavapany argues that although "East Asia countries are well-represented in the Group of 20, the G20 is not, and cannot by its nature be envisaged as, an East Asian organisation. The Asian voices are matched, if not overwhelmed, by those of the United States; Canada, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina from the Americas; the European Union; the individual European countries of Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy; the great Eurasian power called Russia; Turkey, another Eurasian country; Saudi Arabia, the leader of the oil-producing world; and South Africa.
The G20 is a global organisation that seeks to reflect the existing balance of economic power. It is certainly necessary, but it is difficult to see how it could reflect the aspirations and responsibilities of an ascendant East Asia."
Those are obviously correct and excellent analyses that I would agree.
K Kesavapany then seems to have made a sudden yet smooth enough 180 degree turn, turning the back to the East Asia Summit concept and embracing to the ASEAN+8 concept.
Many people may be confused by the different ideas or proposals in East Asia, ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6, Asia Pacific Community, now ASEAN+8.
Let's remind people what ASEAN+8 and EAS mean:
ASEAN+8 = ASEAN, Australia, China, Japan, India, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea the United States.
SAS = members from East Asian countries.
I am not sure that people are now totally confused by the logic and rationale K Kesavapany uses.
If continuing K Kesavapany's earlier arguments, one would certainly expect that the EAS, as opposed to ASEAN+8 would be chosen by K Kesavapany to represent the voice of East Asia, but that is not so.
One would probably feel some inherent inconsistency in the development of K Kesavapany's arguments and conclusion.
It would be helpful if that inconsistency could be avoided.