Comments on Gareth Evans "Time for the middle powers to step up", 21/07/2015
There will be justifiable places for the middle powers in Asia or Asia Pacific to play their rightful roles in building and managing regional security and other useful regional institutions.
It, however, requires the middle powers to be creative and truly independent, at least when acting to play such roles. Otherwise, some middle powers may be quite biased and may act with some outdated historical links or allies, that may be perceived by some non allied regional members as doing harmful things to them.
Perhaps that is the challenge for some middle powers, do they really act in the interests of all the regional members or do they work for their allies, one may ask?
Certainly, some and possibly lot of actions by some middle powers have either an overt or covert agenda, such as the so called “The not-quite-quadrilateral: Australia, Japan and India” posted by David Lang on the Australian Policy Online, may point to some of those. That seems to aim squarely at containing China, if judged from what the Japanese official was saying. That would unlikely make China happy and warm to ideas like that.
Showing posts with label Asia Pacific Community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asia Pacific Community. Show all posts
2011-03-01
History in shorter and longer terms
Comments on Jennifer Chen “Vietnam’s open port policy: strategy for keeping China at bay”, 1/03/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/03/01/vietnams-open-port-policy-strategy-for-keeping-china-at-bay/
Vietnam's strategy may or may not necessarily work.
Russia is in the picture as an important player in the background, though at the moment many people have not mentioned it.
Further, as the relative strategic strengths between the US and China shift, both will rethink their own strategies, or will have to do so in the mean time.
In such as big theatre with the US, China and Russia in play, any very short term strategies may not be consistent with longer term interests.
Although history has not always shown to be rational or planned in any rational manner, sometimes history has some inevitability.
There are many issues and areas that bilateral dealings have to be made.
PS: the best strategy for the future of Asia is to have an Asian organisation that can deal with Asian regional issues.
Vietnam's strategy may or may not necessarily work.
Russia is in the picture as an important player in the background, though at the moment many people have not mentioned it.
Further, as the relative strategic strengths between the US and China shift, both will rethink their own strategies, or will have to do so in the mean time.
In such as big theatre with the US, China and Russia in play, any very short term strategies may not be consistent with longer term interests.
Although history has not always shown to be rational or planned in any rational manner, sometimes history has some inevitability.
There are many issues and areas that bilateral dealings have to be made.
PS: the best strategy for the future of Asia is to have an Asian organisation that can deal with Asian regional issues.
2010-06-03
Incomplete information, uncertainty and interactive gaming in regionalism
Comments on Anthony Milner “From Asia-Pacific to Asia?” 3/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/03/from-asia-pacific-to-asia/
It seems the issues are not as clear cut as one might assume they are.
I am a layman to foreign affairs, regionalism and regional construct.
From a layman's perspective, the issues may be characterised by incomplete information, uncertainty, rational, evolving and dynamic interactions of players especially the more significant players.
There can be many types of uncertainties, such as the changes in both expectations and real relative weights between players and their reactions, as well as the ability of each player in terms of planning and execution of what may be perceived the correct course.
People have to make choices in that environment and different choice may lead to a different outcome.
The reality is that even the best and simple concept may not necessarily lead to the best outcome through a complex process.
The current debate on mining taxes in Australian may serve as a reminder. Most people may accept that a profit based royalty regime may be better than a sales-based regime. But is the Australian government's RSPT the best implementation or scheme for a profit based royalty? The debate has been very furious and little indication is in sight for a satisfactory resolution, yet.
During the debate, there was a statement in support of the proposed tax by 20 leading Australian economists. On the other hand there was also an article by another equally leading Australian economist pointing out problems with this particular mining tax proposal.
No wonder the public has been totally confused.
That very debate has serious implications for the issues of this post, no matter whether it is due to possible faulty design in the whole or part of the current proposal or poor consultation and communication on the government’s part, or both.
It seems the issues are not as clear cut as one might assume they are.
I am a layman to foreign affairs, regionalism and regional construct.
From a layman's perspective, the issues may be characterised by incomplete information, uncertainty, rational, evolving and dynamic interactions of players especially the more significant players.
There can be many types of uncertainties, such as the changes in both expectations and real relative weights between players and their reactions, as well as the ability of each player in terms of planning and execution of what may be perceived the correct course.
People have to make choices in that environment and different choice may lead to a different outcome.
The reality is that even the best and simple concept may not necessarily lead to the best outcome through a complex process.
The current debate on mining taxes in Australian may serve as a reminder. Most people may accept that a profit based royalty regime may be better than a sales-based regime. But is the Australian government's RSPT the best implementation or scheme for a profit based royalty? The debate has been very furious and little indication is in sight for a satisfactory resolution, yet.
During the debate, there was a statement in support of the proposed tax by 20 leading Australian economists. On the other hand there was also an article by another equally leading Australian economist pointing out problems with this particular mining tax proposal.
No wonder the public has been totally confused.
That very debate has serious implications for the issues of this post, no matter whether it is due to possible faulty design in the whole or part of the current proposal or poor consultation and communication on the government’s part, or both.
2010-05-06
Is the idea of APC growing?
Comments on Daryl Morini “Whither the Asia-Pacific Community?” 6/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/06/whither-the-asia-pacific-community/
Interesting would be my reaction to this posting.
I was seeking a compelling argument throughout the posting, but in the very end I found one, sort of.
There seems a commonality between the author and Rudd - all Queenslanders.
Perhaps people in the sunshine state tend to have more sunshine ideas than other peoples do.
Other peoples need to get more sunshine to catch up with them, it seems.
Interesting would be my reaction to this posting.
I was seeking a compelling argument throughout the posting, but in the very end I found one, sort of.
There seems a commonality between the author and Rudd - all Queenslanders.
Perhaps people in the sunshine state tend to have more sunshine ideas than other peoples do.
Other peoples need to get more sunshine to catch up with them, it seems.
2010-03-30
Common versus diverging regional intersts
Comments on Ezra Vogel “Regionalism in Asia: Why we should stick with existing structures”, 30/03/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/30/regionalism-in-asia-why-we-should-stick-with-existing-structures/
The author's view clearly reflects more of the interests of the US in the region, as well as its role in the region of Asia Pacific.
However, it remains to be seen if there are interests of Asian or East Asian countries that may go beyond those of the US interests.
For example, they may have their intra Asian regional affairs that have little to do with the US.
If those interests do not interest the US and the US has no desire or capacity to contribute to those intra Asian regional affairs, why shouldn't be an Asian regional body be set up to look after their own interests?
Understandably, there are common as well as diverging interests between Asia and the US.
Why should the US have a say on such a body?
Contrast to the view of the author, I see the need for both the current bodies and other regional bodies, with region properly defined.
The author's view clearly reflects more of the interests of the US in the region, as well as its role in the region of Asia Pacific.
However, it remains to be seen if there are interests of Asian or East Asian countries that may go beyond those of the US interests.
For example, they may have their intra Asian regional affairs that have little to do with the US.
If those interests do not interest the US and the US has no desire or capacity to contribute to those intra Asian regional affairs, why shouldn't be an Asian regional body be set up to look after their own interests?
Understandably, there are common as well as diverging interests between Asia and the US.
Why should the US have a say on such a body?
Contrast to the view of the author, I see the need for both the current bodies and other regional bodies, with region properly defined.
2009-10-19
Luke Nottage has some good points on APC
Comments on Luke Nottage comments on “An Asia Pacific Community: an idea whose time is coming” by Richard Woolcott, 18/10/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/18/an-asia-pacific-community-an-idea-whose-time-is-coming/
Luke Nottage's 5 points, except the third one for possibly a very long time, seem a sensible approach. Such an approach seems mainly to be focused on economic and business side.
APEC seems also to be a very good forum to realise this approach.
It is different from Rudd's APC concept, but may evolve to be the basis for some type of APC in the long run.
This scenario may be the most likely one in the Asia Pacific region in the foreseeable future.
Rudd may need to realise this so to focus and target better on what is realistically achievable in the next decade or possibly longer.
Luke Nottage's 5 points, except the third one for possibly a very long time, seem a sensible approach. Such an approach seems mainly to be focused on economic and business side.
APEC seems also to be a very good forum to realise this approach.
It is different from Rudd's APC concept, but may evolve to be the basis for some type of APC in the long run.
This scenario may be the most likely one in the Asia Pacific region in the foreseeable future.
Rudd may need to realise this so to focus and target better on what is realistically achievable in the next decade or possibly longer.
2009-10-12
East Asian arrangements need clarity
Comments on Peter Drysdale “Japan in the spotlight in the lead-up to APEC”, 11/10/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/11/japan-in-the-spotlight-in-the-lead-up-to-apec/
It is understandable the idea to include India in either APEC or APC, for the reason that it is an Asian country.
It is a little bit puzzling why India should be included in any East Asian arrangements, though.
It does not sound right. Either the name should be changed to reflect its real content, or it should not be included.
Why are people doing some things as such, incoherent and self contradictory?
It is understandable the idea to include India in either APEC or APC, for the reason that it is an Asian country.
It is a little bit puzzling why India should be included in any East Asian arrangements, though.
It does not sound right. Either the name should be changed to reflect its real content, or it should not be included.
Why are people doing some things as such, incoherent and self contradictory?
2009-07-29
Asian Union versus APC concepts
Comments on Jia Qingguo “Realizing the Asia Pacific Community: geographic, institutional and leadership challenges”, 28/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/28/realizing-the-asia-pacific-community-geographic-institutional-and-leadership-challenges/
It seems that the first and far most important question to ask is whether it is an Asian regional community type organisation, or an Asia Pacific community. Different people, with different purposes, are calling for quite different things. The two are quite different and would serve equally quite different purposes, and likely have quite different membership and governance structure.
Asia is itself a very large mass in terms of both population and geographical land, as well as diversity. There seems a need to have an Asian Union type community that will look after and advance the affairs and fairs of all Asian nations. The membership should be open to all Asian nations on voluntary basis.
There are regional organisations for all other regions, EU for Europe, African Union in Afric, American Summit in all America, and a Pacific forum for Pacific nations. Interestingly and ironically, the only region that does not have an effective regional organisation is Asia, the largest continent.
It will be difficult to establish such a community, given the size of Asia and its diversity. But it is by no means impossible. Some existing Asian smaller regional organisations can be the core for such a development.
A further Asia Pacific cross regional organisation, such as what Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community proposal or concept, appears to have a nature of super-regional or cross-regional. There is a need for such an organisation, because the very different dynamics across the Pacific. This type of cross-regional organisation will be important in shaping the global affairs in the next 50 years. The membership of this type of organisation is highly likely to be selective as compared to inclusive.
Further, within this cross-regional organisation the sort of questions of existing alliances of different sorts, as raised by Jia, will have to be addressed. Otherwise non-alliance members would have natural concerns of equality and fairness, if such an organisation is to address regional security issues at all.
Cold war has ended long ago. Everyone needs to consider whether there is any need for any cold war era structures or products or legacies to exist anymore. For what purpose do they need to exist? This will be a serious question for people to consider and answer.
One needs to be clear about the differences in these two equally needed but quite different organisations.
It seems that the first and far most important question to ask is whether it is an Asian regional community type organisation, or an Asia Pacific community. Different people, with different purposes, are calling for quite different things. The two are quite different and would serve equally quite different purposes, and likely have quite different membership and governance structure.
Asia is itself a very large mass in terms of both population and geographical land, as well as diversity. There seems a need to have an Asian Union type community that will look after and advance the affairs and fairs of all Asian nations. The membership should be open to all Asian nations on voluntary basis.
There are regional organisations for all other regions, EU for Europe, African Union in Afric, American Summit in all America, and a Pacific forum for Pacific nations. Interestingly and ironically, the only region that does not have an effective regional organisation is Asia, the largest continent.
It will be difficult to establish such a community, given the size of Asia and its diversity. But it is by no means impossible. Some existing Asian smaller regional organisations can be the core for such a development.
A further Asia Pacific cross regional organisation, such as what Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community proposal or concept, appears to have a nature of super-regional or cross-regional. There is a need for such an organisation, because the very different dynamics across the Pacific. This type of cross-regional organisation will be important in shaping the global affairs in the next 50 years. The membership of this type of organisation is highly likely to be selective as compared to inclusive.
Further, within this cross-regional organisation the sort of questions of existing alliances of different sorts, as raised by Jia, will have to be addressed. Otherwise non-alliance members would have natural concerns of equality and fairness, if such an organisation is to address regional security issues at all.
Cold war has ended long ago. Everyone needs to consider whether there is any need for any cold war era structures or products or legacies to exist anymore. For what purpose do they need to exist? This will be a serious question for people to consider and answer.
One needs to be clear about the differences in these two equally needed but quite different organisations.
2009-07-26
Interesting Japan and its regionalism push
Comments on Takashi Terada “The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism”, 26/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-rise-of-china-the-impetus-behind-japanese-regionalism/
This is an interesting article to describe Japan's motives behind its regionalism push.
It provides some supports to the argument that Japan has been unwilling to see other developing nations to improve their living standards and catch up with Japan and be equal with it.
I remember someone blamed that China was ungrateful to Japan's aid in comments to an article earlier on. If Japan was like this, how and why could China be grateful to it?
It is complex regionalism, international economics and politics. This article can serve as a potential reference.
We need true and sincere international cooperation, not the kind of one undermining another or others.
As a by-product, this article also potentially increases the difficulties of Rudd’s push to establish an Asia Pacific Community, because it could be perceived as another tool to contain China.
All nations need to be rational and mature.
This is an interesting article to describe Japan's motives behind its regionalism push.
It provides some supports to the argument that Japan has been unwilling to see other developing nations to improve their living standards and catch up with Japan and be equal with it.
I remember someone blamed that China was ungrateful to Japan's aid in comments to an article earlier on. If Japan was like this, how and why could China be grateful to it?
It is complex regionalism, international economics and politics. This article can serve as a potential reference.
We need true and sincere international cooperation, not the kind of one undermining another or others.
As a by-product, this article also potentially increases the difficulties of Rudd’s push to establish an Asia Pacific Community, because it could be perceived as another tool to contain China.
All nations need to be rational and mature.
2009-06-23
Rudd's APC is a trans-regional concept
Comments on Carlyle A. Thayer “Kevin Rudd’s multi-layered Asia Pacific Community initiative”, 22/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/22/kevin-rudds-multi-layered-asia-pacific-community-initiative/”
By describing none of the existing regional institutions were capable of engaging ‘in the full spectrum of dialogue, cooperation and action on economic and political matters and future challenges to security’, and proposing for a new institution, Rudd has had a different idea than the development or evolution of any of the existing institutions. So it seems that there is a fundamental difference between the Rudd proposal and any of the existing regional institutions. In this sense, it is incorrect to avoid this important point. As a result, it is questionable that attempts to bridge the two different things after the Rudd proposal ran into difficulties will inject any new insights into the Rudd proposal.
Despite that, Rudd's proposal may still be viable in its own right in a broad context of a combination of regional and trans-regional arrangements. But it is likely to proceed at a slower pace than Rudd probably has had in mind.
There is a clear need for an Asian regional organisation that represents Asia as a distinct region, just as Europe, Africa and America and / or North America and Latin America. This is especially important given the dynamics of the Asian region, especially the East Asia region over the past decades and the next few decades. It economic weight is increasing rapidly. This regional arrangement is likely to evolve from some sort of the existing institutions or loose organisations or forums, such as EAF and gradually expand to a broad and more inclusive Asian organisation. In such a regional institution, countries from other regions than Asia are unlikely to be members.
Rudd's proposal does not necessarily conflict with this Asian regional institutional development, because it represents a trans-regional institution. This trans-regional institution is based on both the inherent links between the Asia and Pacific regions but more importantly the existing reality of current security arrangement, as well as the likely shift in both the economic, political as well as military powers within Asia and the Pacific regions.
So, it may be more helpful if important and unavoidable distinctions are made rather than being hidden. Perhaps Rudd himself should make it clear whether his proposal is for an Asian regional or a trans-regional institution. To mud the two does not help to advance his proposal.
By describing none of the existing regional institutions were capable of engaging ‘in the full spectrum of dialogue, cooperation and action on economic and political matters and future challenges to security’, and proposing for a new institution, Rudd has had a different idea than the development or evolution of any of the existing institutions. So it seems that there is a fundamental difference between the Rudd proposal and any of the existing regional institutions. In this sense, it is incorrect to avoid this important point. As a result, it is questionable that attempts to bridge the two different things after the Rudd proposal ran into difficulties will inject any new insights into the Rudd proposal.
Despite that, Rudd's proposal may still be viable in its own right in a broad context of a combination of regional and trans-regional arrangements. But it is likely to proceed at a slower pace than Rudd probably has had in mind.
There is a clear need for an Asian regional organisation that represents Asia as a distinct region, just as Europe, Africa and America and / or North America and Latin America. This is especially important given the dynamics of the Asian region, especially the East Asia region over the past decades and the next few decades. It economic weight is increasing rapidly. This regional arrangement is likely to evolve from some sort of the existing institutions or loose organisations or forums, such as EAF and gradually expand to a broad and more inclusive Asian organisation. In such a regional institution, countries from other regions than Asia are unlikely to be members.
Rudd's proposal does not necessarily conflict with this Asian regional institutional development, because it represents a trans-regional institution. This trans-regional institution is based on both the inherent links between the Asia and Pacific regions but more importantly the existing reality of current security arrangement, as well as the likely shift in both the economic, political as well as military powers within Asia and the Pacific regions.
So, it may be more helpful if important and unavoidable distinctions are made rather than being hidden. Perhaps Rudd himself should make it clear whether his proposal is for an Asian regional or a trans-regional institution. To mud the two does not help to advance his proposal.
2009-06-16
What can Japan expect from rebalancing?
Comments on Tobias Harris “Is Japan balancing?” 16/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/16/is-japan-balancing/
This is another point that why there is a need to have an Asian community that collectively looks after themselves and the region as a whole. No matter what Japan does, it is likely only to represent a futile and wasteful attempt to balance or to fill the waning influences of the US in North East Asia. That will cause wasteful military race in the region and beyond.
It has been more than 60 years after the end of the Second World War and nearly 20 years after the collapse of the former USSR, the other only superpower aside the US during the cold war era. What is Japan rebalancing for? Will it effective to its so called objectives?
We need to move on from the cold war geopolitical thinking and strategies. We need a completely new approach. An Asia community or union style with collective and non-discriminative security arrangement for all members will save unnecessarily too much military spending for each of its members.
East Asia or Asia more broadly, should build on the recent momentum of its ascendance in world economic affairs to look for a more-long lasting and more-enduring regional development, stability and security. Through managing well its own regional affairs, Asia can contribute to a better world.
This is another point that why there is a need to have an Asian community that collectively looks after themselves and the region as a whole. No matter what Japan does, it is likely only to represent a futile and wasteful attempt to balance or to fill the waning influences of the US in North East Asia. That will cause wasteful military race in the region and beyond.
It has been more than 60 years after the end of the Second World War and nearly 20 years after the collapse of the former USSR, the other only superpower aside the US during the cold war era. What is Japan rebalancing for? Will it effective to its so called objectives?
We need to move on from the cold war geopolitical thinking and strategies. We need a completely new approach. An Asia community or union style with collective and non-discriminative security arrangement for all members will save unnecessarily too much military spending for each of its members.
East Asia or Asia more broadly, should build on the recent momentum of its ascendance in world economic affairs to look for a more-long lasting and more-enduring regional development, stability and security. Through managing well its own regional affairs, Asia can contribute to a better world.
2009-06-15
We need a clean slate design for an Asia regional architecture
Comments on Hadi Soesastro “Architectural momentum in Asia and the Pacific”, 14/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/14/architectural-momentum-in-asia-and-the-pacific/
It appears there are a few different proposals for establishing some sort of a regional forum for Asia, East Asia, and/or Asia Pacific. It is a health development and reflects a strong desire from the regional nations, broader or narrower.
It also appears that there is a need to approach the design of such a or more regional forums from a clean slate, as opposed to be constrained by some existing forums, although it is possible that some of the existing regional forums could be transformed into new forums people are thinking about.
The constraints of existing forums on thinking or designing new regional architecture can be understood, since people tend to think from own experiences. After all, most peoples’ thinking is bounded rationality, framed by the environment in which they work or are familiar with.
The main problem with those constraints is that it is more difficult to consider all feasible options, so results in sub-optimal with long term consequences. We have APEC, ASEAN plus 3, East Asian Summit. We have different proposals, like Rudd’s APC, Korean’s Caucus, etc.
I personally like an Asian Union, an Asian organisation, because there is no such similar organisation in Asia as in other continents. Yes, there is an Asia Development Bank as an Asian regional bank, then why there is no other regional forum to coordinate more broad issues across the Asian region? It is very peculiar indeed.
I look forward to seeing a creative and the most optimal design and thinking for an Asia regional organisation. Other trans-regional forums have their usefulness, but they cannot fulfil the needs of all Asians, or the Asian nations. A clean slate approach to the design is urgently needed.
It appears there are a few different proposals for establishing some sort of a regional forum for Asia, East Asia, and/or Asia Pacific. It is a health development and reflects a strong desire from the regional nations, broader or narrower.
It also appears that there is a need to approach the design of such a or more regional forums from a clean slate, as opposed to be constrained by some existing forums, although it is possible that some of the existing regional forums could be transformed into new forums people are thinking about.
The constraints of existing forums on thinking or designing new regional architecture can be understood, since people tend to think from own experiences. After all, most peoples’ thinking is bounded rationality, framed by the environment in which they work or are familiar with.
The main problem with those constraints is that it is more difficult to consider all feasible options, so results in sub-optimal with long term consequences. We have APEC, ASEAN plus 3, East Asian Summit. We have different proposals, like Rudd’s APC, Korean’s Caucus, etc.
I personally like an Asian Union, an Asian organisation, because there is no such similar organisation in Asia as in other continents. Yes, there is an Asia Development Bank as an Asian regional bank, then why there is no other regional forum to coordinate more broad issues across the Asian region? It is very peculiar indeed.
I look forward to seeing a creative and the most optimal design and thinking for an Asia regional organisation. Other trans-regional forums have their usefulness, but they cannot fulfil the needs of all Asians, or the Asian nations. A clean slate approach to the design is urgently needed.
2009-06-03
Rudd's APC proposal and US and Australia alliance: are they compatible?
Further comments on Peter Drysdale “Rudd in Singapore on the Asia Pacific Community idea”, 31/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/31/rudd-in-singapore-on-the-asia-pacific-community-idea/
Irrespective whether Ron Huisken's interpretation of the Rudd APC proposal is correct, that proposal seems fatally flawed. It is a naive and premature idea.
Just think about this: is China willing to deal with the US alone or is that willing to deal with the US and its two military allies and deputies in the East Asia together? Alternatively, is Rudd prepared to give up the US - Australia alliance? Is Japan willing to do so? Why would China want to create more trouble for itself by including Japan and Australia in its dealing with the US if it can do it on a bilateral basis?
I have no doubt that Rudd is good intentioned in his APC proposal. But if Ron Huisken is correct that Rudd's key objective is to see the United States cemented into a body within which there are some members that are militarily aligned with the US while the other rising power is not, it is unlikely to get off the ground.
That should not be a too subtle point for people to see. In that context, there is also the Australian white paper on defence. It does not appear to sit well with Rudd's APC concept. At the least they have been poorly timed together.
Irrespective whether Ron Huisken's interpretation of the Rudd APC proposal is correct, that proposal seems fatally flawed. It is a naive and premature idea.
Just think about this: is China willing to deal with the US alone or is that willing to deal with the US and its two military allies and deputies in the East Asia together? Alternatively, is Rudd prepared to give up the US - Australia alliance? Is Japan willing to do so? Why would China want to create more trouble for itself by including Japan and Australia in its dealing with the US if it can do it on a bilateral basis?
I have no doubt that Rudd is good intentioned in his APC proposal. But if Ron Huisken is correct that Rudd's key objective is to see the United States cemented into a body within which there are some members that are militarily aligned with the US while the other rising power is not, it is unlikely to get off the ground.
That should not be a too subtle point for people to see. In that context, there is also the Australian white paper on defence. It does not appear to sit well with Rudd's APC concept. At the least they have been poorly timed together.
2009-06-02
Rudd - a statesman or a bureaucrat?
Comments on the news report that “Rudd's secret spiked essay for Foreign Affairs journal”, The Australian, 2/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25573720-601,00.html
There is a news report on the Australian today on Rudd's unpublished essay related to his APC idea. The following two sources can serve as references:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25573720-601,00.html
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Rudds-secret-spiked-essay-for-Foreign-Affairs-magazine/
Presumably, Rudd in that essay would have elaborated on the idea more fully. But since it is not published yet, I don't know what his main arguments are. Anyone interested has to wait for its publication, if it ever has that day.
I just want to quote a short paragraph from the second report:
According to sources familiar with the essay it was considered by some at the magazine to be “overly bureaucratic”.
So, is Rudd a stateman or a bureaucrat? You be the judget.
There is a news report on the Australian today on Rudd's unpublished essay related to his APC idea. The following two sources can serve as references:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25573720-601,00.html
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Rudds-secret-spiked-essay-for-Foreign-Affairs-magazine/
Presumably, Rudd in that essay would have elaborated on the idea more fully. But since it is not published yet, I don't know what his main arguments are. Anyone interested has to wait for its publication, if it ever has that day.
I just want to quote a short paragraph from the second report:
According to sources familiar with the essay it was considered by some at the magazine to be “overly bureaucratic”.
So, is Rudd a stateman or a bureaucrat? You be the judget.
2009-05-26
Rudd APC idea unlikely feasible
Comments on Hugh White “The Asia Pacific Community concept: right task, wrong tool?” 26/04/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/26/the-asia-pacific-community-concept-right-task-wrong-tool/
Hugh White may be too kind to the Rudd APC concept.
I am not even sure the APC idea has any appeals to either China or the US. As the float of the G-2 idea, the bilateral relationship between the US and China, the world’s own superpower and a rapidly emerging and likely new superpower, is likely itself to take a course of its own. Unless they two can’t sort out issues they think important to both of them among themselves, there is not much left for others get involved in that important and far-reaching bilateral relationship for the next two decades or more. Leaderships in both countries and their advisors will be wise enough to realise that the only way forward to the benefit of both of them is close cooperation between them. Any other ways will be costly to both of them.
In that context, ideas from people to involve the US, China and Japan in another new regional forum do not appear to be realistic. For one thing, China is unlikely to accept that, because while the proponents may have good intentions, it is not too for China to see there is an element of using the US-Japan security relations to contain China. China is likely to be more suspicious especially when Australia is involved, given its emphasis on the tri-lateral security relations between the US, Australia and Japan and its role in the security in the Asia Pacific.
Yes APEC includes those three countries together. But it is mainly an economic forum and was created during earlier. The time now looks much different to then. Even from an economic perspective, the US economy is in great trouble, and is likely to experience a more rapid decline relative to those more dynamic developing economies, such as that of China’s and India’s. The US will have significant problems in terms of increasing savings and reduce government debts. While the US economy will remain a very important part to many economies including those dynamic developing economies, the coming decades following this great recession will see a world economy with less reliance on that of the US.
If Australia is to really look after its long term strategic interest, it has to recognise that it needs to stand as an independent member, not a deputy of the US. Any attempts to drag the US into a forum with China and to use the US as a protector is unlikely to have a market in China. To include Japan and the US will make the matter worse. One needs to have some perspective of how China perceives those ideas. Just as it is difficult for Australia to abandon its security alliance with the US, or for Japan and the US to give up theirs, it will be difficult for China not to feel threatened by their common presence in a new regional community involving security matters.
My guess is that China probably has every incentive not to see such a regional community such as the APC. If it can do without it, China is likely to do just that. That is why I have doubt to the feasibility of Rudd’s APC idea. Others may take it as a too much self-interest centred idea from Australia which is yet to demonstrate its maturity in its strategic approach to Asia.
Hugh White may be too kind to the Rudd APC concept.
I am not even sure the APC idea has any appeals to either China or the US. As the float of the G-2 idea, the bilateral relationship between the US and China, the world’s own superpower and a rapidly emerging and likely new superpower, is likely itself to take a course of its own. Unless they two can’t sort out issues they think important to both of them among themselves, there is not much left for others get involved in that important and far-reaching bilateral relationship for the next two decades or more. Leaderships in both countries and their advisors will be wise enough to realise that the only way forward to the benefit of both of them is close cooperation between them. Any other ways will be costly to both of them.
In that context, ideas from people to involve the US, China and Japan in another new regional forum do not appear to be realistic. For one thing, China is unlikely to accept that, because while the proponents may have good intentions, it is not too for China to see there is an element of using the US-Japan security relations to contain China. China is likely to be more suspicious especially when Australia is involved, given its emphasis on the tri-lateral security relations between the US, Australia and Japan and its role in the security in the Asia Pacific.
Yes APEC includes those three countries together. But it is mainly an economic forum and was created during earlier. The time now looks much different to then. Even from an economic perspective, the US economy is in great trouble, and is likely to experience a more rapid decline relative to those more dynamic developing economies, such as that of China’s and India’s. The US will have significant problems in terms of increasing savings and reduce government debts. While the US economy will remain a very important part to many economies including those dynamic developing economies, the coming decades following this great recession will see a world economy with less reliance on that of the US.
If Australia is to really look after its long term strategic interest, it has to recognise that it needs to stand as an independent member, not a deputy of the US. Any attempts to drag the US into a forum with China and to use the US as a protector is unlikely to have a market in China. To include Japan and the US will make the matter worse. One needs to have some perspective of how China perceives those ideas. Just as it is difficult for Australia to abandon its security alliance with the US, or for Japan and the US to give up theirs, it will be difficult for China not to feel threatened by their common presence in a new regional community involving security matters.
My guess is that China probably has every incentive not to see such a regional community such as the APC. If it can do without it, China is likely to do just that. That is why I have doubt to the feasibility of Rudd’s APC idea. Others may take it as a too much self-interest centred idea from Australia which is yet to demonstrate its maturity in its strategic approach to Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
