Author: Peter Drysdale

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).

But I am not sure that he knows whether political leaders in the region will be open to thinking about these conditions as the starting point in strengthening regional architecture or whether appeal to the principles that have driven Asia Pacific cooperation– openness, equality, and evolution — have a chance of being extended to the political and security theatres (see Elek).

Hugh wants to surrender taking the chance on the ground that this is the stuff of power politics and power politics is a zero sum game. No doubt it is, at its end-point, but over a significant range it is a mixed interest game. And there are many security interests among the regional powers – both traditional and non-traditional (climate change, natural disaster relief, energy and food security) – in which the common positive interests exceed the negatives. And that’s the territory Mr Rudd, I presume, together with a more than few hard-headed strategists in the region are seeking to map now.

And I should say that the EU metaphor is a red herring, except to anyone who has interpreted the Rudd initiative through lazy journalism.