Asia-Pacific strategic summits: Shangri-La Dialogue and APR 2010
The International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) Asia Security Summit, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, is the foremost annual forum for defence and security issues in the wider Asia-Pacific region. The Dialogue was held in Singapore from 4-6 June 2010. It was immediately followed by the ASEAN-ISIS Asia Pacific Roundtable (7-9 June), convened by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) in Malaysia. Asia:NZ director policy and research, Dr Andrew Butcher, reports on his return from the two events.
Shangri-La Dialogue
Each year, the Shangri-La Dialogue follows a major event in the Asian region.
This year, once again, North Korea was responsible for that event: the sinking of the South Korean naval ship Cheonan, with the loss of over forty lives.
That, at least, was the presenting issue. But North Korea and its actions, never present in person but always present in discussion, also played into the broader narrative of the changing roles of the major powers in the Asia region.
There was palpable tension between the United States, in the form of Secretary Gates, and China, in the form of General Ma. That tension had largely to do with issues that preceded the Dialogue, but the Chinese General’s omission of a mention of the Cheonan sinking in his general remarks stood in great contrast to Gates’ forthright comments on that subject.
When it came to the Q & A, General Ma’s pointed accusations of double standards by the US (vis-à-vis the Israeli actions in Gaza only a few days earlier) and an equally robust assertion that the responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan was “controversial”, provoked a stinging rebuttal from Gates. And while everything was conducted in the frame of diplomatic niceties, nobody was left in any doubt that there was not a lot of love between these two men and the countries they represented.
The roles of China and the US in the region will undoubtedly feature again in future Shangri-La Dialogues, but one discussion point that may now be relegated to the official proceedings and history books was former Australian Prime Minister Rudd’s Asia-Pacific community idea.
Months before Shangri-La began I had heard reliable rumours that Rudd’s star was falling fast and that he would likely be replaced this year. That proved to be true and happened sooner than I had expected. But it indicated that the unravelling of the APc idea, which began almost as soon as the idea was floated, would be complete with Rudd’s departure. A day before the Dialogue the Singapore Straits-Times said that the APc was “an idea that has now floundered” and despite the best efforts of Australian Defence Minister Faulkner to wave that particular flag, the omission of it from any other speech or major discussion more or less proved the Straits Times’ point. ASEAN countries, and Singapore in particular, have never been sympathetic to the APc idea, and so its demise will not be missed.
But regional architecture, while the bread-and-butter of track 1.5 and track 2 dialogues, remains an important issue and, at the least, Rudd’s APc idea prompted further discussion around who will be in any regional grouping, why they’d be there (or not) and how it would function, especially alongside the plethora of other regional organisations that already exist.
Other issues that featured this year and will almost certainly make future appearances, include cyber-security and climate change. But all of these may be outshone by whichever event precedes the Shangri-La Dialogue next June and therefore dominates its discussion.
Asia Pacific Roundtable
Next year, the Asia Pacific Roundtable (APR) will be a quarter of a century old, so this year’s 24th roundtable was a prelude to what promises to be a significant celebration of this esteemed track two gathering in Asia.
Even the aspirations for this roundtable were grand. Early drafts of the programme had two foreign affairs ministers and the US assistant secretary of state as speakers, though none eventuated. Once again the theme of the roundtable was strengthening comprehensive security in the Asia Pacific and many of the familiar faces returned to present papers. However, there was explicitly and notably a ‘changing of the guard’. With the recent death of one of its key architects, Hadi Soestraso, the Chair of ASEAN-ISIS Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak used his opening comments to both pay tribute to its key players, many of whom were there, and to signal that a new (and younger) group of academics and policy makers were going to take the APR into the future.
New Zealand’s contribution was also ‘new’ in a sense this year. Professor Robert Ayson, the new Chair of Strategic Studies at Victoria University, presented a paper in the session on Afghanistan while I chaired the session on Maritime Security in the Asia Pacific. Neither of us had had speaking roles in the past, so it was good to have New Zealand represented in two panels. New Zealand was also represented by Asia:NZ Young Leader Pia McKay and New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Malaysia HE David Kersey, along with his deputy.
Other sessions covered topics including China’s relations with Asia, the Asia-Pacific regional architecture, Southeast Asian perspectives on the dawn of the Asian century, making the responsibility to protect work, climate change, North Korea, US policy in Asia, Myanmar and India, plus sessions on Japan and Thailand. The session on Japan had been called “Continuity and Change under the Hatoyama Administration”, which proved to be more about change than continuity given Hatoyama had resigned only a few days earlier and the new Prime Minister Kan hadn’t yet appointed his new Cabinet.
The APR is ostensibly a track two conference though it shares many of its features with a regular academic conference. It is one of the longest-running track two conferences in the region and still provides a useful and fertile networking platform with other track two players from throughout Asia. It draws on a different audience from the Shangri-La Dialogue, which precedes it in Singapore, and is now at a juncture: it faces the challenge of remaining relevant and fresh while retaining some of the gravitas and history that has seen it play a central role in track two dialogues in Asia.