Australian Journal of Political Science
ISSN: 1036-1146 (Print) 1363-030X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20
Australia and middle power approaches to Asia
Pacific regionalism
Thomas Wilkins
To cite this article: Thomas Wilkins (2017) Australia and middle power approaches to
Asia Pacific regionalism, Australian Journal of Political Science, 52:1, 110-125, DOI:
10.1080/10361146.2016.1238870
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1238870
Published online: 04 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3862
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cajp20
,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2017
VOL. 52, NO. 1, 110–125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1238870
ARTICLE
Australia and middle power approaches to Asia Pacific
regionalism
Thomas Wilkins
Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
This article presents a liberal-institutionalist conceptual framework Accepted 13 September 2016
drawn from Middle Power theory to analyse Australian foreign
policy approaches towards Asia Pacific regionalism. Building on KEYWORDS
Middle power; Australian
precedents set by the former Keating administration, the Labor foreign policy; Asia Pacific;
government of Rudd/Gillard (2007–13) undertook high-profile regionalism; IR theory
efforts not only to engage, but to champion, the regionalism
process in the Asia Pacific. This enterprise became fused with a
self-proclaimed identity as a ‘creative middle power’. Through an
analysis of regional community building, regional security
architecture and regional order, the article identifies the strong
linkages between the theory and practice of ‘middle power’
diplomacy, and the concept of ‘regionalism’ itself, in Australian
foreign policy. The article thus contributes to the theoretical
literature by exposing the important intersections between the
two concepts and concludes that despite Rudd’s prolific attempts
to harness Australia’s middle power credentials, Canberra was not
able to significantly affect the process of Asia Pacific regionalism
unilaterally.
Asia Pacific ‘regionalism’ has formed a key component of Australian foreign policy initiat-
ives in recent history, notably beginning with the Labor government of PM Paul Keating
(1991–96) and his Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. Indeed, since then He (2011: 268) tes-
tifies that ‘Australia has been a facilitator and driver of regional integration’. This involve-
ment reached its apogee in 2008 when PM PM/Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd1 launched an
ambitious scheme to bring about an ‘Asia Pacific Community’ (APC). By explicitly har-
nessing the notion ‘creative middle power diplomacy’ he aimed at reconfiguring regional
security architecture to forge an inclusive and ules-based security order. Hence, under
Rudd, Australian approaches to regionalism in the Asia Pacific now became symbiotically
attached to the notion of Australia as a middle power. As a consequence, Manicom and
Reeves (2014: 31) observe that Australian ‘middle power activism’ has been defined,
above all, by ‘efforts to drive regionalism in East Asia and cultivate a role as a regional
power’. These realisations draw scholarly attention to the potential for a more explicit
examination of the apparent intersections between the academic concepts of ‘middle
power’ and ‘regionalism’; a synergy as yet unexplored.
CONTACT Thomas Wilkins
© 2016 Australian Political Studies Association
, AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 111
And yet, unsurprisingly, regionalism is a broad, complex, and multifaceted concept,
subject to little consensus among academics or policy-makers.2 ‘Regionalism’ – as con-
ceived in this article – refers to the macro-processes of politics, security, and economics
that overlay and define a certain region (Beeson 2007). These are manifested through
both state-to-state examples of functional cooperation, and in multilateral efforts
towards regional integration (with the socioeconomic spur of the regionalism process
often referred to as ‘regionalisation’) (Amako et al. 2013; Kahler and MacIntyre 2013).
Through these processes states and other actors are confronted by the myriad challenges
raised by ‘complex economic interdependence’, as well as a range of traditional and non-
traditional security risks. But in addition, we must also be alert to the normative dimension
inherent in the regionalism process. As He and Inoguchi (2011: 165) point out, it serves as
political arena in which:
different actors sell their vision of the region to others, build support for their ideas, and man-
euver against competing proposals. Although ideas about regionalism often appear to be
thinly disguised expressions of national interests, an important question for Asia is
whether or not ideas about the region can move beyond the limits of narrow national inter-
ests into a shared sense of community.
Though the concepts of regionalism/regionalisation themselves are accompanied by a
degree of specific theorising (some of which is incorporated below), this article seeks to
bring into relief the unexplored synergies between (Liberal-Institutionalist) Middle
Power theory and the concept of regionalism, achieved through a process of filtering
and deconstructing recent Australian foreign policy initiatives. As the article will demon-
strate, the concepts of middle power and regionalism – both in theory and practice – prove
to be closely intertwined, making the former a valuable means of gaining analytical pur-
chase upon the latter.
The article proceeds as follows. The first section identifies the historical antecedents of
the emergent nexus between middle power and regionalism prior to the Rudd/Gillard gov-
ernment. The second section sets forth the key tenets of the ‘middle power’ concept, con-
centrating on its liberal-institutionalist interpretation, and explains how this branch of
middle power theory interlocks with ‘regionalism’. The third section of the article then
explores the Rudd/Gillard Labor government’s attempts to leverage Australia’s middle
power credentials in the service of regionalism. In order to highlight the connections
between regionalism in Australian middle power-based foreign policy, the main analysis
is presented under three main headings: regional community building, regional security
architecture, and regional security order.
Middle power diplomacy and Australian regionalism
Going back to European settlement, Australia’s place in the region has been characterised
by a sense of vulnerability, ambivalence, or hostility towards its northern neighbours. As
Meaney et al. (1988: 50) note, ‘The Australian people’s attempt to relate their European
history to their Asia Pacific geography is a long and troubled story’. The resultant con-
dition of partial inclusion/exclusion in a ‘natural’ region is known as ‘liminality’
(Higgott and Nossal 1997). On this basis, Huntington (1993: 42) has even categorised Aus-
tralia as a ‘torn country’ – ‘torn’ between its European culture/identity and its ‘Asian’
ISSN: 1036-1146 (Print) 1363-030X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20
Australia and middle power approaches to Asia
Pacific regionalism
Thomas Wilkins
To cite this article: Thomas Wilkins (2017) Australia and middle power approaches to
Asia Pacific regionalism, Australian Journal of Political Science, 52:1, 110-125, DOI:
10.1080/10361146.2016.1238870
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1238870
Published online: 04 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3862
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cajp20
,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2017
VOL. 52, NO. 1, 110–125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1238870
ARTICLE
Australia and middle power approaches to Asia Pacific
regionalism
Thomas Wilkins
Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
This article presents a liberal-institutionalist conceptual framework Accepted 13 September 2016
drawn from Middle Power theory to analyse Australian foreign
policy approaches towards Asia Pacific regionalism. Building on KEYWORDS
Middle power; Australian
precedents set by the former Keating administration, the Labor foreign policy; Asia Pacific;
government of Rudd/Gillard (2007–13) undertook high-profile regionalism; IR theory
efforts not only to engage, but to champion, the regionalism
process in the Asia Pacific. This enterprise became fused with a
self-proclaimed identity as a ‘creative middle power’. Through an
analysis of regional community building, regional security
architecture and regional order, the article identifies the strong
linkages between the theory and practice of ‘middle power’
diplomacy, and the concept of ‘regionalism’ itself, in Australian
foreign policy. The article thus contributes to the theoretical
literature by exposing the important intersections between the
two concepts and concludes that despite Rudd’s prolific attempts
to harness Australia’s middle power credentials, Canberra was not
able to significantly affect the process of Asia Pacific regionalism
unilaterally.
Asia Pacific ‘regionalism’ has formed a key component of Australian foreign policy initiat-
ives in recent history, notably beginning with the Labor government of PM Paul Keating
(1991–96) and his Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. Indeed, since then He (2011: 268) tes-
tifies that ‘Australia has been a facilitator and driver of regional integration’. This involve-
ment reached its apogee in 2008 when PM PM/Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd1 launched an
ambitious scheme to bring about an ‘Asia Pacific Community’ (APC). By explicitly har-
nessing the notion ‘creative middle power diplomacy’ he aimed at reconfiguring regional
security architecture to forge an inclusive and ules-based security order. Hence, under
Rudd, Australian approaches to regionalism in the Asia Pacific now became symbiotically
attached to the notion of Australia as a middle power. As a consequence, Manicom and
Reeves (2014: 31) observe that Australian ‘middle power activism’ has been defined,
above all, by ‘efforts to drive regionalism in East Asia and cultivate a role as a regional
power’. These realisations draw scholarly attention to the potential for a more explicit
examination of the apparent intersections between the academic concepts of ‘middle
power’ and ‘regionalism’; a synergy as yet unexplored.
CONTACT Thomas Wilkins
© 2016 Australian Political Studies Association
, AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 111
And yet, unsurprisingly, regionalism is a broad, complex, and multifaceted concept,
subject to little consensus among academics or policy-makers.2 ‘Regionalism’ – as con-
ceived in this article – refers to the macro-processes of politics, security, and economics
that overlay and define a certain region (Beeson 2007). These are manifested through
both state-to-state examples of functional cooperation, and in multilateral efforts
towards regional integration (with the socioeconomic spur of the regionalism process
often referred to as ‘regionalisation’) (Amako et al. 2013; Kahler and MacIntyre 2013).
Through these processes states and other actors are confronted by the myriad challenges
raised by ‘complex economic interdependence’, as well as a range of traditional and non-
traditional security risks. But in addition, we must also be alert to the normative dimension
inherent in the regionalism process. As He and Inoguchi (2011: 165) point out, it serves as
political arena in which:
different actors sell their vision of the region to others, build support for their ideas, and man-
euver against competing proposals. Although ideas about regionalism often appear to be
thinly disguised expressions of national interests, an important question for Asia is
whether or not ideas about the region can move beyond the limits of narrow national inter-
ests into a shared sense of community.
Though the concepts of regionalism/regionalisation themselves are accompanied by a
degree of specific theorising (some of which is incorporated below), this article seeks to
bring into relief the unexplored synergies between (Liberal-Institutionalist) Middle
Power theory and the concept of regionalism, achieved through a process of filtering
and deconstructing recent Australian foreign policy initiatives. As the article will demon-
strate, the concepts of middle power and regionalism – both in theory and practice – prove
to be closely intertwined, making the former a valuable means of gaining analytical pur-
chase upon the latter.
The article proceeds as follows. The first section identifies the historical antecedents of
the emergent nexus between middle power and regionalism prior to the Rudd/Gillard gov-
ernment. The second section sets forth the key tenets of the ‘middle power’ concept, con-
centrating on its liberal-institutionalist interpretation, and explains how this branch of
middle power theory interlocks with ‘regionalism’. The third section of the article then
explores the Rudd/Gillard Labor government’s attempts to leverage Australia’s middle
power credentials in the service of regionalism. In order to highlight the connections
between regionalism in Australian middle power-based foreign policy, the main analysis
is presented under three main headings: regional community building, regional security
architecture, and regional security order.
Middle power diplomacy and Australian regionalism
Going back to European settlement, Australia’s place in the region has been characterised
by a sense of vulnerability, ambivalence, or hostility towards its northern neighbours. As
Meaney et al. (1988: 50) note, ‘The Australian people’s attempt to relate their European
history to their Asia Pacific geography is a long and troubled story’. The resultant con-
dition of partial inclusion/exclusion in a ‘natural’ region is known as ‘liminality’
(Higgott and Nossal 1997). On this basis, Huntington (1993: 42) has even categorised Aus-
tralia as a ‘torn country’ – ‘torn’ between its European culture/identity and its ‘Asian’
