Comments on: Realizing the Asia Pacific Community: geographic, institutional and leadership challenges http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/28/realizing-the-asia-pacific-community-geographic-institutional-and-leadership-challenges/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:23:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Dr.Thanawat Pimoljindahttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/28/realizing-the-asia-pacific-community-geographic-institutional-and-leadership-challenges/comment-page-1/#comment-61176 Dr.Thanawat Pimoljinda Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:59:56 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=6046#comment-61176 Ideas I would like to add to this essay are as follows: Regional cooperation is somewhat varied in its characteristics. Those characteristics are not only identified as bilateral or multilateral relations between or among states within a given region, but they are also identified as interregional cooperation as well. The ambiguity of the patterns of interstate cooperation thus brings about the ill-defined characteristics of regional, cross-regional, or even interregional cooperation. Especially in regard to contemporary international relations, such regional cooperation is not confined just within a distinct geographic area, but also across continents as seen, for example, in the cases of the APEC and ASEAN Regional Forum. More importantly, the arguments above can be illustrated, for example in the case of ASEAN, by four primary aspects as follows: First to be considered are the multilateral relations among ASEAN member states in creating close ties with one another. The reason for this was that it was a response to the challenge of communism in the context of the Cold War and to create collective security arrangements such that the national sovereignty and independence of all member states would be safeguarded. However, in the context of modernization, it was aimed as a means of strengthening regional economies in response to the tide of economic globalization and to promote economic development for all member states. The second to be considered are the bilateral relations between ASEAN regional organization and the more powerful economic actors like ASEAN plus three (China, Japan, and South Korea). Even though in the past, Japan and China were understood as the major challenge to ASEAN regional security and economic stability, in the context of economic globalization, these countries could enhance the economic status of ASEAN and its member states in the global arena. Parallel to this is the bilateral relations between member states of ASEAN. This is usually seen as the creation of FTA under the cooperative framework of ASEAN. The third to be considered are the bilateral relations between individual member states with the outside powers. For the third aspect, what particularly comes to the fore is the state of affairs obtaining when an individual member state desires to create a FTA with economic powers such as Japan and China. And the forth to be considered are the bilateral relations between two regional organizations such as the ASEAN European Meeting (ASEM). Therefore, it can be concluded that the presence of the regional organization in response to the different contexts of international relations depended largely on the actions and reactions of individual member states. The regional organization, in this regard, is perceived as the mediator for both individual member states within it, and between individual member states and the varying contexts of the international system. Dr.Thanawat Pimoljinda Ideas I would like to add to this essay are as follows:
Regional cooperation is somewhat varied in its characteristics. Those characteristics are not only identified as bilateral or multilateral relations between or among states within a given region, but they are also identified as interregional cooperation as well. The ambiguity of the patterns of interstate cooperation thus brings about the ill-defined characteristics of regional, cross-regional, or even interregional cooperation. Especially in regard to contemporary international relations, such regional cooperation is not confined just within a distinct geographic area, but also across continents as seen, for example, in the cases of the APEC and ASEAN Regional Forum. More importantly, the arguments above can be illustrated, for example in the case of ASEAN, by four primary aspects as follows:
First to be considered are the multilateral relations among ASEAN member states in creating close ties with one another. The reason for this was that it was a response to the challenge of communism in the context of the Cold War and to create collective security arrangements such that the national sovereignty and independence of all member states would be safeguarded. However, in the context of modernization, it was aimed as a means of strengthening regional economies in response to the tide of economic globalization and to promote economic development for all member states.
The second to be considered are the bilateral relations between ASEAN regional organization and the more powerful economic actors like ASEAN plus three (China, Japan, and South Korea). Even though in the past, Japan and China were understood as the major challenge to ASEAN regional security and economic stability, in the context of economic globalization, these countries could enhance the economic status of ASEAN and its member states in the global arena. Parallel to this is the bilateral relations between member states of ASEAN. This is usually seen as the creation of FTA under the cooperative framework of ASEAN.
The third to be considered are the bilateral relations between individual member states with the outside powers. For the third aspect, what particularly comes to the fore is the state of affairs obtaining when an individual member state desires to create a FTA with economic powers such as Japan and China. And the forth to be considered are the bilateral relations between two regional organizations such as the ASEAN European Meeting (ASEM).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the presence of the regional organization in response to the different contexts of international relations depended largely on the actions and reactions of individual member states. The regional organization, in this regard, is perceived as the mediator for both individual member states within it, and between individual member states and the varying contexts of the international system.

Dr.Thanawat Pimoljinda

]]> By: Mark Langanhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/28/realizing-the-asia-pacific-community-geographic-institutional-and-leadership-challenges/comment-page-1/#comment-47573 Mark Langan Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:40:48 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=6046#comment-47573 How Asian will an Asian-Pacific Community look, and who will be perceived to be sitting in the driver's, or at least the front seat? This will always be a major stumbling block for Kevin Rudd. His enthusiastic cultivation of the ongoing close relationship with the current US government, while an essential plank of Australia's overall foreign policy, will be seen as many as coming at the expense of truly unburdened relations with our Asian neighbours. There is no doubt as to the merits of an APC. The perception of it being an instrument of US policy for the region, rather than the formation of a true Asian-Pacific Community, will be difficult to overcome, and it would be optimistic indeed to see it embraced by Asian leaders any time soon. Given this, maintainence of the existing matrix of bilateral and multilateral arrangements probably does present the best we can hope for in the region. How Asian will an Asian-Pacific Community look, and who will be perceived to be sitting in the driver’s, or at least the front seat? This will always be a major stumbling block for Kevin Rudd. His enthusiastic cultivation of the ongoing close relationship with the current US government, while an essential plank of Australia’s overall foreign policy, will be seen as many as coming at the expense of truly unburdened relations with our Asian neighbours.

There is no doubt as to the merits of an APC. The perception of it being an instrument of US policy for the region, rather than the formation of a true Asian-Pacific Community, will be difficult to overcome, and it would be optimistic indeed to see it embraced by Asian leaders any time soon. Given this, maintainence of the existing matrix of bilateral and multilateral arrangements probably does present the best we can hope for in the region.

]]> By: Lincoln Funghttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/28/realizing-the-asia-pacific-community-geographic-institutional-and-leadership-challenges/comment-page-1/#comment-46046 Lincoln Fung Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:03:18 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=6046#comment-46046 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. 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.
One needs to be clear about the differences in these two equally needed but quite different organisations.

]]>