Canada and the institute of pacific relations: Lessons from an earlier voyage
Woods suggests that valuable lessons can be learned from Canada's involvement in the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) which will aid and inform its current Asia‐Pacific relations. Two arguments are made in this paper: that interaction with the IPR has shaped current Canadian attitudes towards regional institutions; and that a form of 1920s track‐two diplomacy is alive today in Canada. Canadian interaction with the IPR is examined through: the impact the Institute had on the leader of the Canadian delegation to the first IPR conference, John Nelson, and his subsequent contributions to Canada's early track two diplomacy; the impact that the Canadian academic/diplomat E. Herbert Norman had on the Institute and Canada's Asia‐Pacific persona; the state‐society relationship within Canada vis‐a‐vis the IPR; and the role of American philanthropy in sustaining Canadian contributions to the Institute. Woods concludes that the belief in track‐two diplomacy is alive and well in Canada; that the utility of a broad...
The Institute of Pacific Relations and the Origins of Asian and Pacific Studies
W ESTERN, PARTICULARLY NORTH AMERICAN, SCHOLARS of Asia and the Pacific work amidst an abundance of materials, research programs, funding sources and the other features characteristic of major academic endeavors. Most have never known other circumstances. Given the relative sufficiency of their surroundings, many of these scholars-especially those trained since mid-century-may be unaware that the academic structure they depend upon dates back only five or six decades and was developed by a pioneering generation of scholars who, although diminished in number, are still present and peripherally active. As recently as the late 1920s, there were no mechanisms for the systematic study of either Asia or the Pacificno graduate programs, no research centers, no professional associations, no regular conferences, and no substantial library collections. Indeed, aside from the early efforts of a few like George H. Blakeslee, Stanley K. Hornbeck, and Kenneth S. Latourette, there were not even elementary courses offered through organized departments. A good number of these scholars may also be unaware that the Institute of Pacific Relations, an organization prominent from the late 1920s to the mid 1950s but now largely unknown except to older scholars, is almost solely responsible for changing these conditions. Through an extensive series of conferences on Asian and Pacific issues and a highly productive collaborative research program focused upon related topics, it laid the foundation for modern Asian and Pacific studies in the West. The Institute's achievements in research are especially significant. The classic studies of Asia and the Pacific during the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s-works such as J. Lossing Buck's Land Utilization in China, George McT. Kahin's Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia, Felix M. Keesing's Modern Samoa, Owen Lattimore's Inner Asian Frontiers of China, E. Herbert Norman's Japan's Emergence as a Modern State, Richard H. Tawney's Land and Labour in China, and Teng Ssu-yu and John King Fairbank's China's Reponse to the West-as well as many hundreds of lesser known titles were produced under its aegis.1 Perhaps no other organ-
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.