Strengthening Canada-Asia Relations through Southeast Asian Track Two Diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We"ve built this reputation for coming but not coming back.With Asia becoming a much more important part of the global economy, you really can"t get away with that." -John Manley, October 2011Ball and Brendan Taylor, second track processes in the Asia-Pacific region provided much of the momentum required to drive a purposeful and productive Track One security cooperation process forward. 2 As Asian countries increasingly see the need for different kinds of diplomatic configurations to address challenges, global and local, facing the region, 3 a number of formal multilateral institutions have emerged in the Asia-Pacific over the years, including: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967; The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum, founded in 1989; The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), created in 1994 and; The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), established in 2001.This paper will argue that Southeast Asian Track Two Diplomacy, also known as ASEAN Track Two, is a cost effective way for Canada to re-engage in the Asia-Pacific.In order to support this thesis and to explain why it is important for Canada to regain a bigger presence in Asia, the following arguments will be made: First, Canada invested long-term efforts in developing stronger and deeper ties with ASEAN Governments as a way of establishing a place for itself in the post-Cold War era, and was able to build a good reputation for itself as both a strong middle power and a multilateral country.In trying to help solidify ASEAN itself as a more effective mechanism for regional cooperation at the official level, Canada promoted informal, regular and systematic dialogue among ASEAN-member countries for over a decade.It took on significant intellectual leadership in Southeast Asia by advancing notions of cooperation through multilateral forums, international institution-building and creative diplomatic skills, such as generating new security concepts and 2 Soesastro, H., Joewono, C., and Hernandez, C. "Twenty Two Years of ASEAN ISIS : Origin, Evolution and Challenges of Track Two Diplomacy," Published for ASEAN ISIS by CSIS, [Jakarta] : 2006, p.108.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".