Regional architecture and the reality of power politics
June 19th, 2008Author: Hugh White
Peter Drysdale knows more than anyone about how to get things moving in the Asia-Pacific, so I pay a lot of attention to his views on the Rudd’s Asia-Pacific Community idea, and especially his critique of the sceptical views I have expressed about it. However I do not think we are as far apart as he suggests on the question of the right starting point for institution-building. Our differences are over how close we are to having reached those starting points, and over whether Rudd’s initiative brings us any closer.
First, I agree with Peter that the place to start building new institutions in Asia is not with a complex set of agreements on values, but with a much more austere set of rules – “the simplest rules of engagement for dialogue”, as Peter says in his post. Peter reads my call for a common set of principles as referring to a common set of values, but on the contrary I mean just the opposite. What we need to do is to agree that we can build a dialogue of equals on strategic questions despite differences in values. That is precisely what ‘’the simplest rules of engagement’’ for discussion need to cover. At its simplest this is something very basic indeed – all of the major powers need to agree to treat each other as equals, with equally legitimate political systems and international interests. Without that, the basic conditions for a cooperative dialogue about Asia’s strategic future cannot be met. Instead we will get a forum in which differences are aired and amplified.
Second, this may seem a minimalist condition, but we are still a long way from satisfying it yet in Asia. Simply ask any American leader whether they are willing to treat China as an equal, or any Chinese leader whether they are willing to treat Japan as an equal. In both cases the answer will almost certainly be ‘’no’’. Until the answer is ‘’yes’’, we have a problem.
Third, I’m not sure Rudd’s suggestion does much to help overcome it this problem. Conceptually the idea seems, to put it mildly, under-developed. The counterproductive use of the EU metaphor seems to suggest that not much thought has gone into what it should look like in its own right. Tactically, launching an idea like this without some serious consultation with key players more or less guarantees it will be dead on arrival, as I suspect it already is.
Peter’s boundless energy and optimism has often proved the sceptics wrong about what can be achieved cooperatively in Asia, and I hope Peter is right again this time, and I am wrong. But this is power politics we are talking about here, and it’s a zero-sum game. Alas the pessimists are usually right.
Related articles:
- Competing Asian Communities: What the Australian and Japanese ideas mean for Asia’s regional architecture
- A three-tier approach to Asian regional architecture
- Asia Pacific socio-economic regional architecture: Beyond FTAs and ‘Business As Usual’
- Indonesia climate green paper: towards carbon pricing, geothermal power and regional incentives
- Good news and bad news on the APEC front
- Emissions confusion: trading vs taxes
- Multilateralism and Australia and Japan as America’s deputies
Print this post
[...] One More Word on Regional Architecture Hugh White is right that ‘what we need to do is to agree that we can build a dialogue of equals on strategic questions despite differences in values’. That is precisely what ‘’the simplest rules of engagement’’ for discussion need to cover. This is something very basic indeed – all of the major powers need to agree to treat each other as equals, with equally legitimate political systems and international interests. Without that, the basic conditions for a cooperative dialogue about Asia’s strategic future cannot be met.’ (link). [...]