Bisley, Nick. "Contested Asia's 'New' Multilateralism and Regional Order". The Pacific Review, Vol.32, No.1 (2018): 1-10.

Bisley, Nick. "Contested Asia's 'New' Multilateralism and Regional Order". The Pacific Review, Vol.32, No.1 (2018): 1-10.

• Asia lacked a large number of international institutions during the Cold War, with the major exception of the relatively inert ASEAN (1-2). This was rapidly changed the since the end of the Cold War, beginning in the 1980s with the growth of many international economic and investment associations (1).
• In 1989, regional powers in the Asia-Pacific created the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC], designed as a forum to facilitating a broad liberalization of trade; this cooperation was expanded in 1994. That same year, ASEAN created a regional forum with a broader scope of political issues, followed by similar mechanisms in the following years. New organizations have continued to be created, and Japan and Australia advocated in 2009 for still newer initiatives (1-3).
• These international organizations have very little actual power, with Asian-Pacific states giving up essentially no power to international organizations. The weakness of these organizations means that any tensions will likely be resolved without reference to multilateral institutions (9).
• Kai He argued that the Asian-Pacific international organizations and initiatives of the 1980s and 1990s should be distinguished from 21st Century initiatives. Earlier multilateralism was concentrated around ASEAN and had general aims informed by liberal IR theory, whereas later initiatives were broader in geographic scope and focused more narrowly on economic issues (3).
• The timeline provided by Dr. Kai is erroneous. With the exception of ASEAN, all Asian-Pacific international organizations were created between 1989 and 2010, when the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank was chartered. This means that no boom in economic-focused organizations was created after the 2008 financial crisis (3).
• Dr. Kai's assertion that 20th Century regional organizations were concentrated around ASEAN is also incorrect. Although some organizations were, APEC was championed by Japan and Australia, and the SCO by China (3-4).
• The author claims that regional integration in Asia occurred during a single period beginning in the late 1980s because the greater commercial integration of the region, particularly China, created enough incentives to justify the effort entailed in regional cooperation. By the late 1980s, the regional economies were integrated enough that trade-oriented international organizations would produce significant gains (4-5).
• The widening impact of globalization has driven the expansion of the range of issues dealt with by Asian-Pacific international organizations. Whereas originally only economies were affected, greater movement of people has resulted in a greater need to cooperate on issues such as security and health, as demonstrated by the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak (5).
• The increased multilateralism and regional integration of the Asia-Pacific is because the states saw an economic advantage in pursuing such integration. This marks the resulting international organizations as separate from European regional organizations, which were designed to engender political change towards continental unity and peace (5).
• The author claims that regional international organizations are a boon for the smaller Asian states because they allow these states to check the power of the major powers in the region -- China, Japan, USA, etc. This trend also explains the failure of those international organizations that were the personal projects of a single great power (5-6).
• The construction of international organizations in the Asia-Pacific was uncoordinated and unplanned, resulted in a large number of redundant organizations with similar membership roles and functions (6).
• The author divides the international organizations of the Asia-Pacific into three categories: those build around ASEAN, those established by China to push its regional goals, and those based around America and its regional allies (6).
• Asia-Pacific experienced relative stability during the Cold War, with countries divided between the two power blocs, and the conflict occasionally spilling out in specific countries, like Vietnam and Korea. For countries removed from the frontlines of the Cold War, this regional stability allowed for a focus on internal development and comparatively low defense spending, with the exceptions of North Korea and the USA (6-7).
• This equilibrium has begun to shift around 2012, as the US felt increasingly challenged by the rising power of China and started a military escalation that has been matched by all regional powers. China's position as a geopolitical competitor has become explicit during the Trump administration (7).
• International organizations have not significantly increased trust in the Asia-Pacific nor contributed to a de-escalation of tensions. Instead, existing tensions disrupt the work of international organization. Moreover, organizations have become tools of international competition, such as the rivalry between the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (7).
• The US and other allied powers, like Australia, have seen international organizations as a way to incorporate China into the existing regional order, as participating in these organizations will allegedly force China to accept the status quo and accepted norms of regional affairs (8).
• The strange nature of international competition in the Asia-Pacific is such that both the USA and China claim to be dedicated to a free and open order in the region predicated on mutually-beneficial cooperation that respects national sovereignty. They both, however, believe that the other side has constructed an unfair regional system (9).