four basic functions that a regional architecture needs to address. These are: (a) to provide a collective forum for regional leaders to address the full range of critical regional and global issues that affect them all; (b) to strengthen and deal effectively with the consequences of economic integration, particularly its trade and investment dimensions; (c) to address issues of political change and security; and, (d) to provide a basis for educating the public and opinion leaders about the region.

None of the existing institutions in the region fulfills these needs, as Kevin Rudd also recognized. That does not mean that all functions need to be served by the one organisation. Accepting ‘variable geometry’, would seem a practical way forward.

Nevertheless, as I have said to you before, economies vary in the extent to which they expect their leaders to operate separately from official processes and I place less weight on the Leaders’ Meeting than you do. (We do not have to choose between these conceptions; we have to find ways in which we can operate with different expectations.) I agree even more fully on ‘variable geometry’ but I am not sure that there is much room for an Asian G6 of Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Korea, or for an Asia Pacific G10 which has Canada, Mexico, Russia and US in addition to the G6. I understand your idea that regional organizations could give a mandate to the Asian G6 or the Asia Pacific G10, but wonder why they should do so or what the specified group would do. The finance ministers of the G8 have just met and endorsed the idea that there should be trans-national regulation of cross-border financial issues. But it is doubtful whether they will be able to define a common approach for themselves, and even more doubtful that they will possess any authority over anybody else. There is still a large gap between Europe and America over what regulation can achieve and it is unlikely that they can mount an effective argument and lobby in an organization like IOSCO when they can themselves agree only on platitudes. Would this not apply a fortiori to the G6 and G10? The groupings can meet if they wish to – they need nothing more than a little co-operation from whoever is convening a meeting of the EAS or APEC – if they agree that a meeting is desirable and can find a common agenda. By why would the other 10 members of the EAS or the other 11 members of APEC take any notice? They are unlikely to see any value in formulating an agenda for the smaller group when they can seek to attach the “executive committee” directly into a consensus of the group as a whole. (You talk about a briefing for EAS on the G20 which is obviously sensible – but what role could the G6 play?) Even if you had explicitly included the ASEAN director-general as a member I cannot see any attraction to Thailand. Malaysia or Singapore. Nor do I think Chile will defer to Mexico, and giving Russia a key role in the Asia Pacific community is even less attractive – which of your four basic functions is promoted by that?

It seems that there are three distinct regions implicated in the debate: the Asian region, the Pacific region, and the Western Hemisphere region. What do these three regions have in common? Only the Pacific Ocean. How many people live in the Pacific Ocean? Not many.

To have a strong regional organization, isn’t it necessary to have a strong sense of regional identity? The outstanding example, of course, in today’s nation-state system, is Europe. No region comes close to having Europe’s common sense of values and purpose.

Look at how weak regional identity is in the Western Hemisphere. Before trying to build a strong Asia-Pacific community, doesn’t it make sense to build a strong Western Hemisphere community? Otherwise it appears that the Asia-Pacific community is being promoted as a substitute for a weak Western Hemisphere community.

A case can be made that Asia has a stronger sense of regional identity than the Western Hemisphere has. Asia’s ASEAN-centered regional architecture seems to be miles (kilometers?) ahead of its Western Hemisphere counterpart. Where is the experience that suggests Asia’s regional architecture would be stronger by adding a collection of marginal Pacific nations (counting Australia and New Zealand as Asian nations) or a collection of Western Hemisphere nations? Would the European Community be stronger if it were part of a Europe/Africa-Atlantic region?

What’s wrong with letting Asia be Asia, and not complicating the process of Asian regional integration by inserting countries like Panama and Chile into the mix? If the European Community can be strong without having the United States as a member, doesn’t this suggest that an Asian community would be stronger without the United States as a member?

The United States has excellent relations with the European Community without being a member of it. Similarly, it seems possible for the United States to have excellent relations with the Asian community without being a member of it.

East Asian public sensibilities of regional alliances have their own subtleties, but here in Australia it is more a matter of public insensibility. It is one thing for policy makers to work within a framework of regional cooperation, it is quite another thing to sell the public on the existence of and the need for such a framework.

The Rudd government must put more effort into building public perception of Australia’s role as an Asian partner and regional player, and certainly do more to overcome the entrenched “us and them” attitude prevalent in the media and public opinion. The flow of public attention is a key to political will and any “architectural momentum” policy makers hope to create. It is one thing to have the novelty of a prime minister who speaks Mandarin. It is quite another leap to have a public sense of the dynamics and opportunities inherent in being an integral part of an Asian region.

While shuddering at the though of yet another government public awareness campaign, it is clear that much greater effort needs to be put into redefining the public sense of our geographic, economic and cultural place in the world.

It also appears that there is a need to approach the design of such 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.