Diplomatic activist reshapes region

Not all Asian states are thrilled by the Prime Minister's plans for an Asia-Pacific community

KEVIN Rudd has unleashed a debate about Asia's future that cannot be controlled by any single leader and that has provoked a mixture of support, trauma and resistance across the region, raising risks and opportunities forAustralia.

Rudd's ambitious project to create what he calls an Asia-Pacific community has reached a strange halfway house: it has too much momentum to die but too little consensus to bloom. In Asia it is defining Rudd as an activist and pushy leader.

Rudd's plan is beginning to rock the foundations of Asian orthodoxy with an array of predictable and unpredictable consequences.

It aspires to manage the rise of China but has generated new regional splits between major, middle and minor powers, provoked alarm in Southeast Asia about its influence, and generated new concord between Australia and South Korea along with new tensions between Australia and Singapore.

Above all, it reveals Rudd's bold diplomacy, which will fuel Asian admiration as well as antagonism.

The scale of Rudd's project is underlined by analyst Hugh White: "At the heart of Rudd's thinking is that the rise of China and India poses a challenge to the way Asia works.

"The region needs a new approach rather than just walking blindfolded into this task. But Rudd is challenging the basis of Asian multilateralism. He is contesting [the Association of South-East Asian Nations'] organising principle, that we proceed at the pace of the slowest country."

One of Australia's best friends, Singapore, leads the resistance. It fears the ASEAN way and Southeast Asian influence is at risk.

Simon Tay, chairman of Singapore's Institute of International Affairs, says: "Moving away from ASEAN-centric structures could unhinge the regional balance." ASEAN think tanks decided last August that unless Rudd's concept was sufficiently inclusive, "it should not be supported".

Rudd's regional envoy Richard Woolcott remains an optimist and argues the big powers are coming aboard.

"The views of official participants from the major countries, China, the United States, India and Russia, signal that their governments now publicly support the PM's call for more effective regional architecture," he says.

This refers to last weekend's talks at Taronga, overlooking Sydney Harbour, when more than 200 officials, academics and analysts from the region accepted Rudd's invitation to a conference chaired by Woolcott to refine the Asia-Pacific community concept.

Within days of facing Tony Abbott as new Opposition Leader, Rudd addressed the conference and hosted a Kirribilli House reception for delegates.

His message was unmistakable: this initiative is a Rudd priority. It has his energy, intellect and time.

Speaking from the Kirribilli lawn, an ebullient Rudd gave one of the most effective speeches of his prime ministership, filled with jokes, self-deprecation and his family history, prompting Australia's Peter Drysdale to report that, in the view of one delegate, Rudd "certainly won the hearts of each and every participant".

The three-day conference was a high tide for the new Australia-South Korea strategic concord. Assisted by their joint involvement in the new G20 heads of government body and apparent at the recent Pittsburgh summit, the full extent of the Canberra-Seoul joint script was revealed by former South Korean prime minister Han Seung-soo.

Delivering the keynote lunch speech, he said it was "not surprising" that Australia was again "motivating" its neighbours to rethink the region. "The current political, security and economic architecture of the Asia-Pacific region must be reconstructed to meet the new and emerging challenges," Han said. "It is up to us to seize the zeitgeist."

He advocated an eminent persons group to pursue the idea, a total endorsement of Rudd's stance.

This follows Rudd's briefings on his concept to East Asian Summit leaders in October and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum leaders in November. At the time Rudd canvassed his ideas at length with South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak.

After the Sydney meeting, Woolcott told The Australian: "One option for a follow-up is Dr Han's eminent persons group. Another that I would recommend is a one-track conference involving ministers and officials from the region that would make recommendations for concrete action."

Yet the conference finished last Saturday amid controversy. Lowy Institute director Michael Wesley, whose final summary sparked the Singaporean backlash, explains: "I was surprised at the vehemence of the reaction. It seemed to be against the principles for future action and against my `concert of powers' suggestion.

"I believe people misinterpreted what I was saying. I think while the great powers in the region need to come together, the smaller powers also must be involved."

But many ASEAN delegates left Sydney agitated. The University of Melbourne's Ann Capling, who travelled to the region for a subsequent midweek ASEAN dialogue on trade, was reeling at the backlash. "We were shell-shocked by the response," Capling says. "The message from some delegates was that it wasn't Australia's place to advance this idea, that we weren't important to East Asia. ASEAN delegates recognised the weakness of their institutions but also resented Australian proposals to overcome such weakness."

Behind ASEAN sits China. While China is ready to discuss Rudd's concept, its preferred regional forum is the ASEAN plus three (China, Japan, South Korea), a structure that keeps the US out, Japan down and China on top. Beijing's manipulation of ASEAN for its own purposes is long practised.

Meanwhile, Wesley has no doubt the conference made progress. "There is a sizeable plurality emerging that sees the challenges of Asia are beyond the current institutions but also beyond just bilateral management," he says. This is Rudd's point.

Rudd will receive a formal report within days on the Sydney conference from its co-chairs, Woolcott, Wesley and Vietnam's Ton Nu Thi Ninh, a former Vietnamese ambassador. There is one certainty: Rudd will authorise the next step and will have hefty regional backing.

One option will be to involve Bob Hawke, whose drive 20 years ago laid the foundation for APEC. If Rudd opts for the eminent persons group strategy, he will work closely with South Korea. Hawke would be the logical Australian candidate to chair the group and his name is being canvassed.

Rudd's regard for Hawke extends far beyond attendance at his 80th birthday party this week.

Australia has drawn three firm conclusions from Rudd's Sydney conference: the regional machinery is defective; the new forum must involve an adaptation of the EAS or APEC; and it must deal with all items, security and economic. Last month President Barack Obama held the first summit between the US and all ASEAN members. His message was that the US seeks a deeper institutional engagement with the region and US involvement is integral to Rudd's vision.

Rudd's diplomacy is based on assurance and inclusion.

But White argues: "Singapore is right to be worried. The major powers who know they will be at the table are relaxed. The middle-ranking powers, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam and Australia, see the benefits for themselves. And the smaller guys have reason to be worried."

For White, the contradiction in Rudd's plan is that managing the rise of China involves more radical regional arrangements than Australia is ready to contemplate.

"I think there are risks in this for Rudd and Australia," White says.

"By putting Asia's power shifts on the table, Rudd has raised the stakes hugely and much of his credibility now depends on taking this project forward or at least keeping it alive."

Make no mistake; Rudd will take it forward. But this journey, so close to his heart, is high ambition and high risk.