Two different approaches to the Asia-Pacific regional dialogue

Asia:NZ was part of New Zealand's representation at the 2009 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore and subsequent Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur. Asia:NZ's research director, Dr Andrew Butcher, reports back from the two events held in late May- early June. At the Asia-Pacific Roundtable, he was joined by two members of the Asia:NZ Young Leaders Network, Tom Griffiths and Leon Gaskin.

The IISS Asia Security Summit: The Shangri-La Dialogue is the pre-eminent annual gathering for defence and security diplomacy across the wider Asia-Pacific region, though it also brings in significant delegates from the United States and Europe.

At most meetings since the Dialogue’s 2002 inception, the US Secretary of Defense has been the opening plenary speaker, and 2009 was no exception. What was unusual on this occasion, however, was that it was the same Secretary of Defense even though the Administration in Washington had changed. And the content of Secretary Gates’ speech reflected this change, with much more emphasis on multilateralism and an apology for US arrogance and hubris.

But it wasn’t all wine and roses. His harshest words were reserved for North Korea who, only a few days before the start of Shangri-La, had undertaken its second nuclear test. The timing was, of course, completely coincidental. But, as Mark Rolls notes in his commentary, it meant North Korea had a strong, albeit not physical, presence at the Dialogue.

And for the first time this year, the opening dinner speech was not delivered by the Singaporean Prime Minister, but instead by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. A year ago, Rudd launched his Asia-Pacific Community idea and the reception to it was mixed at best. At Shangri-La he took the opportunity to “re-launch” the idea, albeit in a speech that meandered over too much terrain and didn’t add anything to what was already known, which wasn’t much. Those who weren’t already convinced of the merits of his idea didn’t come away with their minds changed and those who were hoping for more substance were left disappointed.

Defence/national security, rather than regional architecture, is the focus of the dialogue, though the two aren’t discrete issues. The recent Australian Defence White Paper and its focus on China provided discussion fodder, as did comment on what the new Obama Administration might do in the region, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

The global financial crisis really only got a passing mention. Security threats might increase in times of recession, but they are ever-present, however the global economy waxes and wanes.

The plenary addresses at Shangri-La are really a sideshow to the main event, namely bilateral meetings between ministers and officials, and networking between delegates. New Zealand had his largest delegation team ever represented, including three non-government delegates (Peter Cozens, Mark Rolls and me).

Asia-Pacific Roundtable, Kuala Lumpur

The ASEAN-ISIS Asia-Pacific Roundtable (APR) followed in Kuala Lumpur. This is quite a different gathering, organised by the Institute of Strategic Studies (ISIS) and held annually for the last two decades. The APR is much more akin to an academic conference and, unlike the Shangri-La Dialogue, is truly a Track 2 event. Reflecting its location and organisers, the ASEAN countries have a much stronger presence here than at the Dialogue and that affects the discussion. While there was the obligatory session on the new Obama Administration’s foreign policy (which was probably premature, given that there are still many vacancies in the State Department yet to be filled), there was also more narrowly focused discussion.

Insurgencies and local political unrest in Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Philippines got attention as did other traditional security topics such as regional architecture and ASEAN. Transparency in military expenditure was a hot topic, much of it focused on China. The recalcitrant states of Myanmar and the DPRK were present in discussion if not in person. Non-traditional security issues were largely dealt with in the concurrent sessions, which reflects the history of the roundtable as much as it does the expertise of those who attend it. The final session of the roundtable, organised by Brad Glosserman of the Pacific Forum CSIS, gave opportunity for younger voices to be heard and generational differences to be discussed.

Both the Shangri-La Dialogue and the Asia-Pacific Roundtable are important but distinct events in the security dialogue calendar. The former gives politicians and senior policy makers the opportunity to engage in important formal and informal conversations and enables defence ministers in the region to present their perspectives. The latter gives academics the chance to talk concepts, trends and changes, most times without the requirement to push a political barrow. In both cases, however, the networks made are among the most important outcomes and, as for New Zealand, it puts us in a room with the major regional powers of the Asia-Pacific region.

Images from the Shangri-La Dialogue sourced from www.iiss.org

Related articles:

• Young Leaders attend Asia Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur - Leon Gaskin and Tom Griffiths, invited to the summit by Asia:NZ, gave us their impressions

• The 8th Shangri-La Dialogue: a traditional approach - Dr Mark Rolls, Department of Political Science and Public Policy, University of Waikato

• Rudd in Singapore: the Asia-Pacific Community idea - Professor Gary Hawke, Senior Fellow NZIER and Chair of  New Zealand Committee of PECC

• The grand-daddy of track two dialogues - Dr Andrew Butcher's entry on the Lowy blog

• Developing regional security architecture in the Asia-Pacific - Dr Thomas Wilkins, Lecturer at the Center for International Security Studies, University of Sydney