Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

The Asia Pacific Community: objectives, not institutions

Reading Time: 4 mins
  • Gary Hawke

    New Zealand Institute of Economic Research

In Brief

An Asia Pacific Community - though not in the sense intended by Kevin Rudd - is already being built. Its content can be traced in the work of the Economic Research Institute of ASEAN and East Asia, the Asia Development Bank, APEC and analogous institutions in the political-security field.

This community does not require stimulation, let alone direction, from a new Australian prime minister. The clearest message given to Rudd’s envoy, Dick Woolcott, as he tested reaction to Rudd’s speech was that the evolution of any Asia Pacific Community should be entrusted to existing institutions.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Many Australian politicians, officials and commentators like the idea of Australia having a seat in a select group entrusted with high policy decisions.

Peter Drysdale’s post refers to

‘the strategic role of the Asian five within the G20 process (the Asian G7 if you rightly include Australia and the Chair of ASEAN, who was invited to London meeting) as a pointer to the major players from our part of the world in that and other processes.’

The ‘Asian five’, presumably, are China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Korea.

Australian enthusiasm would surely diminish if that group, along with the ASEAN chair and secretary-general, emerged as the executive committee of an Asian community.

Leaving Australian issues aside, the concept has structural flaws. Outdated ideas continue to rule us. The clockmakers of the early modern period permeated a lot of thinking about tidiness and the folly of duplication. How many hours have been wasted by APEC officials trying to eliminate duplication?

Public administration more generally is driven by simplistic ideas of tidiness and these same ideas have infected the disciplines of Political Science and International Relations.

Apart from these simplistic notions, nothing supports the idea that there should be one Asia Pacific Community, rather than a set of institutions supporting the various aspect of a deep community. It is surely time that our thinking was in terms of networks and their interrelationships, rather than in building an old-fashioned institution.

Asian integration, and the building of a community, has given a prime place to economic integration and an economic community. That was how living standards were most readily improved, and where Asian countries could most readily demonstrate their capacities to the rest of the world.

The ‘Asian miracle’ was above all an economic achievement (demonstrating a need to revise conventional international thinking). Creating an opportunity for China to participate in APEC along with Hong Kong and Chinese Taipei, depended on making APEC an organisation of economies.

Economics, however, is a style of thinking rather than a discrete aspect of life, and APEC networks, especially the Leaders’ Meeting, have always discussed what members wanted to discuss.

The notion that APEC is ‘economic’ in some narrow sense is a defensive mechanism by officials and commentators who, unlike Peter Drysdale, are unable to participate in discussion that utilises economic concepts and analysis. They would be just as handicapped in any network which focused on developing an Asian community.

There also needs to be an honest appraisal of the role of the United States. In security affairs, which tend to dominate the high politics of Asia Pacific, the US is a key player.

In economic affairs, the US is important but recent momentum has been towards Asian economic integration, with the US simply part of the global environment in which that is occurring.

Social integration and trends in the political field other than those closely related to security resemble economic integration more than they resemble security management. (There are lots of overlaps; human security differs from defence relations.)

From the US point of view, it is as unlikely that the US would want to be part of an Asian organization as that it would want to be part of the European Union. But just as it seeks leadership in NATO and in other North Atlantic organizations, so it would want a leadership role in the Asia Pacific. (And other Latin American countries would want to participate as well.)

It has been convenient for Asia to try to tie the US into an ‘Asia Pacific’ vision, but the US will insist on a global perspective. The vision of ‘open regionalism’ can be a contribution to world affairs, but Asia Pacific integration has to be compatible with Asian integration just as it will proceed alongside regional arrangements elsewhere.

This conception of an Asia Pacific community is simplistic. An effective network needs more than a wiring diagram. It requires people committed to maintaining relationships throughout the network and ensuring that agreed initiatives are implemented.

Finally, commitment to agreed objectives is what is important, for this idea and for others, not the size of political entities.

4 responses to “The Asia Pacific Community: objectives, not institutions”

  1. In light of Gary Hawke’s arguments in this article, I would like to make some comments. First, Hawke is correct in saying that some sort of Asia Pacific community has been developing and forming. Hawke mentioned a few and I would also add PECC to that long process. All those reflect the real needs and desire of the region, loosely defined. There is no question about that.

    Second, Hawke is also correct that the focus of most of those organisations have been on economics as opposed to politics and security. Partly they have been a pragmatic approach to the diverse situations in the region, as Hawke pointed out.

    Thirdly, I agree with Hawke completely on the following, to quote from the above:

    “It has been convenient for Asia to try to tie the US into an ‘Asia Pacific’ vision, but the US will insist on a global perspective. The vision of ‘open regionalism’ can be a contribution to world affairs, but Asia Pacific integration has to be compatible with Asian integration just as it will proceed alongside regional arrangements elsewhere.”

    What I would like to add is that it is very likely that there will eventually an Asian integration and some organisation or community to represent Asia. An Asia Pacific community is a trans-regional one.

    Fourthly, while I agree with most of Hawke’s arguments, I do see the value and need for a regional and trans-regional organisations or communities to explicitly have a broad focus than economics. I think the concept of open regionalism with an enriched content will be able to serve that purpose.

    Open regionalism should include:

    open trade with the region and beyond

    open capital flows and investment

    broadly and in the long term, few restrictions on labour movement

    common and non-discriminative security and open peace

    collective governance and multilateral approach to regional affairs

    aspirational community goals but respect diversity and autonomy

    I think with an open mind and a focus on long term prosperity and peace and security, such an Asian community and Asia Pacific community will see the day of light.

  2. I can just add some economic information to the debate. I just have a look at the CIA country information about its estimated purchasing power parity (PPP) data of a number of countries and got the following information.

    The PPPs for 2008 were $17.2 trillion for the North America (US, Canada and Mexico), $14.82 trillion for the heavy weights in EU (Germany, UK, Italy, France) and $14.43 trillion for North East Asia (Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan).

    With other dynamic developing economies coming along in Asia, especially noticeable India, and the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, Asia is really becoming the third pillar, together with the US and EU, in the world economy.

    What this means is that it would be better if it is possible to have some sort of Asian regional organisations to coordinate their common efforts and represent their interest in the world affairs. After all, Asia has about two thirds of world population, with two countries each having more than a billion population.

    No matter it is population, geographical size, or economic weights, Asia is an important continent. it needs its own voices and representatives in the world affairs.

  3. The East Asia Forum is to be applauded for its ongoing commitment to commentary on the Asia-Pacific Community, in whatever shape or form it might take. It seems to me, however, from recent fieldwork in Tokyo, that part of the problem is the number of competing concepts and platforms being put forward throughout the region. Taking the example of Japan alone, a cursory survey of the catalogue of the National Parliamentary (Diet) Library, for example, indicates shows over 60 monographs published in the last eight or nine years and over 350 journal articles until May this year. Even the recently re-elected DPJ leader Hatoyama was reported as putting forward an East Asia Community proposal to the South Korean political leadership during his visit there this month.
    Given the number of proposals floating around the region, it is time we convened a mechanism by which we can attempt to bring together these competing proposals and draw out the common and workable themes. It must surely be better than various political leaders perpetually reinventing the ‘community’ wheel.

  4. Donna, it is an excellent idea and very pertinent observation. Maybe East Asia Forum could play a role in bringing people together t o discuss the issues. It could start with scholars and other interested people. It may serve as an avenue to prepare for the Rudd’s meeting latter on.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.