Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd thinks big. He wants to turn Asia into another European Union and, last week, he began his campaign to make that concept a reality. But is it realistic to expect rivals like the US, China, Japan and India - each at differing stages of development and jealously guarding their spheres of interest - to come together and co-operate, European style? And, even if it is feasible, has Australia the clout to drive such an initiative? Mr Rudd sought to answer some of these fundamental questions in a speech delivered to the Asia Society, in Canberra, last Thursday. He outlined the idea of the creation of an Asia-Pacific Community. 'A regional institution which spans the entire Asia-Pacific region - including the United States, Japan, China India, Indonesia and the other states of the region'; one which is 'able to engage in the full spectrum of dialogue, co-operation and action on economic and political matters and future challenges related to security'. Given that the EU was borne out of the aftermath of horrendous conflict, does Mr Rudd believe that the Asia-Pacific region is facing the same grim prospect unless it gets its collective house in order now? He does, and his argument has much validity if one considers the challenges facing the region over the next few decades. Mr Rudd rightly observes that the global economic and strategic weight is moving inexorably towards Asia in the 21st century. Asia will constitute almost half the value of world gross domestic product by 2020, and one-third of global trade. Over half the world's population will live in Asia by the end of the next decade. And, by the same time, military spending in Asia will account for a quarter of the world's total. Behind these staggering statistics, looking holistically at the region, one sees some significant issues that, if not dealt with on a co-operative basis, could provide the fuel for serious conflict in the not-too-distant future. Mr Rudd outlined some of these challenges in his speech. Firstly, there are the existing conflict zones of Kashmir, the Taiwan Strait and the Korean peninsula. There is the inherent tension that comes from rapid economic growth and the way in which that growth is dispersed among communities. And, while Mr Rudd did not single it out specifically, there is the spectre of climate change creating food shortages, mass movements of people and placing a brake on economic growth. If the Asia-Pacific region is to effectively meet these challenges and turn itself into an area of prosperity, peace and co-operation, then an EU-style institution is what is needed, Mr Rudd says. In one sense he has logic on his side. But a caveat needs to be applied here. The countries of Europe that created and built the EU model were better able to do so because they shared common values. France, Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries and Britain are liberal democratic societies. And, when the EU and its predecessors were formed in the 1950s, many of these countries were recognising that their military and strategic might was a thing of the past. This scenario does not hold for the Asia-Pacific region today. There is no consensus among China, Japan, the US and India, let alone among smaller nations, on committing to liberal democratic values. And the incentive for deep military and strategic co-operation between China and the US, for example, is but a pipedream. Mr Rudd is, however, right to lay out the challenge for an Asia-Pacific community. Australia is well placed, as a middle-ranking power which has excellent bilateral relations with countries in the region, to begin the discussion about the need for an unprecedented level of co-operation. And, given that a conflict-ridden Asia-Pacific community amounts to a global nightmare, it is the leaders of the big powers like China, the US and Japan who need to take seriously Mr Rudd's entreaties. Greg Barns is a political commentator in Australia and a former Australian government adviser
