Steering new dynamics in Asia-Pacific

Editor's Note: The 14th World Peace Forum was co-hosted by Tsinghua University and the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs in Beijing from July 2 to 4. A panel discussion examined how evolving regional dynamics can shape the future of Asia-Pacific cooperation on July 3. Three panelists shared their views, as reported by China Daily's Li Huixian.

Rethinking cooperation in the Asia-Pacific

By Thomas Fingar

It's a consensus that preserving peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific is a shared priority, and that enhancing cooperation is both a necessary and achievable goal.

Peace and prosperity cannot be taken for granted because of the changes that have taken place in the global order. Therefore, it is necessary to achieve more impactful cooperation.

Some national and sub-national actors believe that the establishment of "trust" is a necessary condition for cooperation on specific issues. Others contend that the best — or only — way to develop trust is by working together on consequential problems. These are not simply hypothetical alternatives.

They reflect the real-world differences in approach between the ways Chinese and American people define challenges and formulate strategies to address them. Determining the preferred approach of potential participants would seem to be a useful, and perhaps necessary, initial step.

Framing the challenge of cooperation in this way illuminates another question: Is the primary goal of cooperation to alleviate specific threats or to improve and stabilize the fundamental relationships among nations and regions?

How one frames and approaches opportunities for cooperation will differ if the primary objective is to use cooperation on specific problems as a means to improve overarching relationships rather than just solve common problems.

For example, collaboration to check the spread of disease exacerbated by global warming might be pursued differently if the primary goal is reducing friction between two or more countries than if it is to manage disease vectors.

How should goals be prioritized? The question can be answered in many ways, but I wish to introduce another "chicken and egg" dimension of the process. One way is to consider the advantages and disadvantages of establishing or repurposing mechanisms to facilitate particular forms of cooperation. An alternative approach would be to use lessons from specific cases of cooperation to design mechanisms and rules for cooperation on other challenges.

My experience and understanding of interactions in the Asia-Pacific suggest a preference for institution building as a necessary condition for collaboration on specified challenges.

Do we need more organizations and, if so, why and what should they look like? Are some existing structures more essential or amenable to reform than others?

A second parameter is the relationship between structures and behaviors. In the region, national-level actors tend to prioritize the establishment of purpose-built organizations to facilitate cooperation. There is a long list of regional and sub-regional groupings established in recent decades to facilitate cooperation on general or specific challenges.

The fact that we are addressing the subject today attests to the inadequacy of past efforts.

Building structures entails debates and decisions about membership, procedures, and priorities, typically as a prerequisite for determining the substantive challenges to address and how to address them.

An alternative approach would be to attach greater urgency to addressing transnational challenges than to building institutions and refining procedures.

This approach prioritizes cooperation, emphasizing behavior over building new structures.

Formal institutional structures raise questions about eligibility. Can all Asia-Pacific countries participate in collective undertakings? Should eligibility be determined by geography, political alignment, vulnerability to the challenge or other criteria?

Common sense suggests that participation should be open to all affected by the problem or able to contribute to its amelioration. Will common sense prevail or be trumped by historical animosities, current alliance structures, or sanctions? Answers to such questions are neither obvious nor automatic.

The author is a Shorenstein APARC fellow at Stanford University and former assistant secretary of the US State Department. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.