The concept of the Asia-Pacific as a region or a community has been discussed for quite some time. There are at least two different ways to view the concept of an Asia Pacific Community. One is to see it as a comity of nations or an assembly of sovereign states，such as Australia，China，Republic of Korea（ROK），Japan，the United States，Canada，and so forth. The European Union，formed in the 1950s，is a model for a community of this type. Another idea is to view an Asia Pacific Community being as a community formed by ties among individual citizens or members of the private sector of the countries in the region. However，in Asia-Pacific，there are so many sub-regional cooperation arrangements，but none of these existing matrix of various bilateral and multilateral arrangements can present the best we can hope for in the region. So another regional architecture as Asia Pacific Community was proposed by Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008.In the 20th century the world’s center of strategic weight moved from Europe to the United States. In the 21st century it moves to the Asia-Pacific region. The economies of the Asia-Pacific are already 54 per cent of global production and 44 per cent of global trade. This transfer of wealth will continue into the foreseeable future. The region already has the world’s five largest militaries-the US，Russia，China，India，and North Korea-each with nuclear weapons.This major shift in strategic weight-which will involve increased regional influence over global economic，political and security affairs-is likely to be accompanied by pressures. These will arise in the form of increasing potential for regional strategic and territorial competition，competition for scarce resources-oil and gas，water and food-and challenges of pollution and energy security. The need to resist proliferation of weapons of mass destruction（WMD），the illegal movement of people，transnational crime，terrorism，and climate change，are other issues which emphasize the imperatives for-and advantages of-an effective regional architecture.In the past decades，Asia-Pacific region，particularly East Asia，has been the most dynamic region in the world economy. Countries in the region，especially China and India，are growing prosperous and developed through economic growth. These two countries are not only examples of successful economic development in the world，but also important engines for the world economic growth during the period of global economic crisis.Regional cooperation arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region have been developed in many layers in which Association of South East Asian Nations（ASEAN）is by and large stays at the center. ASEAN are regarded as the successful regional institutions in providing peace，stability，and development to the region，ASEAN+3，the East Asian Summit（EAS），Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation（APEC），ASEAN Regional Forum（ARF）and other less prominent bodies for example Asia-Europe Meeting（ASEM）and Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation（FEALAC）. But APEC was formed in 1989 in Australia，as an informal forum in which member nations could discuss free trade and economic cooperation along the Pacific Rim. From the perspective of the United States，it has been a crucial institution for economic engagement within the region，and its membership is so wide as to be unwieldy. The ARF has no leaders-level meeting，can deal only with security matters，and many believe it is too large and has made insufficient progress since its inception. Meanwhile ASEAN，ASEAN+3 and the EAS are each，too varying degrees，insufficiently representative of the Asia Pacific region to be said to constitute an Asia Pacific Community（APC）. The EAS is most representative，and has a leaders’ meeting，but does not include some key countries.For these reasons，in a speech delivered on June 4，2008，Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd laid out his vision for the creation of an Asia Pacific Community by 2020. He argued that if the region was to shape strategic developments rather than merely react to them，new institutions and forms of cooperation were needed in order to build a genuine and comprehensive sense of community，one in which the habitual operating principle was cooperation. Prime Minister Rudd’s proposal is the most ambitious initiative of Australian regional diplomacy since the formation of APEC，in which Australia played a key part.The new institution，Asia Pacific Community，would be forged to deal with security，economic and resource challenges such as generating regional cooperation on security，freeing up trade and ensuring long-term security of energy，food and resource supplies. The community would cover the United States，Japan，China，Australia，India，Indonesia and the other states of the region and would be able to engage in the full spectrum of dialogue，co-operation and action on economic and political matters and future challenges related to security.Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd highly valued ASEAN’s success in community building. ASEAN，as a sub-regional grouping in the Asia-Pacific，highlights the importance of developing the right institutions at the right time：It has been crucial in the transformation of South East Asia from a region of strategic conflict into one of cooperation and consensus. Australia believes the time has now come to extend the vision that drove the formation of ASEAN to the wider Asia-Pacific region. An Asia Pacific community could be seen as a natural broadening of the processes of confidence，security and community-building led by ASEAN. ASEAN’s cooperation style has stressed respect for national sovereignty，avoiding confrontation，reaching agreement through consensus and proceeding at a pace all members are comfortable with.Australia’s vision of creation of an Asia Pacific Community by 2020 is to transform the Asia-Pacific region to a community which would bring together all major regional countries in a single forum at Leaders’ level with a view to enhancing cooperation on economic，political，security and strategic issues. Such a community could encourage further economic and financial integration. It could foster a culture of deeper collaboration and transparency in security matters. It could drive cooperation on the range of transnational challenges. This community concept might emerge from the existing architecture，just as the ARF and the EAS have emerged from ASEAN itself.However，the establishment of the Asia Pacific Community as a region-wide cooperative architecture，is a very long way to go and it will be hard to put into practice in terms of geographical condition，existing bilateral and multilateral arrangements in the region，question of leadership and decision-making mechanism.Geographically，Asia-Pacific includes so many countries in the region. So it may be difficult to decide which countries should be included in the “Asia Pacific” category. If you include Australia，you should include all the Pacific Island states. If you include Brazil，you should include almost all the Latin American states. If you include India，you may well need to include such countries as Iran，Iraq and Saudi Arabia，all of which are also Asian countries. As the previous experience with the Asian Summit shows，there may be a way out by developing a mental map in place of the geographical map in constructing regional organizations. It is not clear what Rudd’s mental map of the Asia-Pacific region looks like and whether he can persuade the rest of the region to accept it.The relationship between the Asia Pacific Community and the existing bilateral and multilateral arrangements in the region is still in question. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stressed the importance of US military alliances in the region，as other Australian leaders have in the past. Does he envisage an Asia Pacific Community replacing these alliances，if not now，then at some later stage？If not，how can one build a viable Asia Pacific Community when some of its members are allies and others are not？And what are the implications of an Asia Pacific Community for the future standing of other multilateral regional institutions such as APEC，ASEAN Regional Forum（ARF），Asian Summit，and the Shangri La Dialogue？Does Rudd envision their phasing out to make space for the Asia Pacific Community in the future？It is not clear how he can persuade countries，especially those with vested interests in these institutions，that the Asia Pacific Community would not undermine their national interests.One more thing is the question of leadership. The question is who should sit in the driver’s seat？So far，several multilateral institutions in the region see the ASEAN countries taking the lead. Does Rudd want to replace them with the big powers like the US，Japan，China，India，and maybe Australia？If so，can he expect support from the ASEAN countries？If not，can he expect countries other than the ARF members to endorse ASEAN leadership？Another the problem is how to develop a decision-making mechanism that is both efficient and also receptive of the views of the smaller states. Rudd thinks that by bringing all the big powers together，the Asia Pacific Community would more effectively address regional challenges. However，the smaller states may fear that they would be ignored，and therefore demand a voice. The Asia Pacific Community can accommodate smaller states’ concerns by adopting a unanimity voting principle on important decisions. However，the big powers，especially the US，may fear that this would handicap the decision-making process.The lack of any clear definition of the proposal，and Rudd’s focus on process rather than substance，has inevitably led to misunderstanding and skepticism，both in Australia and in the region，about what he really wants to achieve. If，as Rudd has said，the Asia Pacific Community would not be an economic or political union，what would it do that is not already being done？If the objective is to achieve a habit of dialogue，surely such a habit has already become ingrained in the region since 1989，despite the imperfections of the current system. However，the proposal has already created the desirable effect，that is，to encourage people in the region to take another serious look at the effectiveness of the existing regional organizations and ways to improve them.Therefore，an Asia Pacific Community as a community of nations is likely to be difficult to achieve. Among sovereign states in the Asia-Pacific region are mountains of issues—territorial，military and otherwise. Those responsible for foreign policy are charged with dealing with these issues，and there is a strong sense on the part of sovereign states that they cannot survive as such if they do not defend their national interests，rights，and territory. Because of this，it would not be so easy for the nations in the region to unite or cooperate in various forms to create an Asia Pacific Community. As a stepping stone for the future of the Asia-Pacific region，we should first strengthen ties among individuals and private sectors in the region. It is a path or a prerequisite for the achievement of an Asia Pacific Community in the future.At the same time，based on existing architecture，we should improve potential for interconnectivity in the Asia-Pacific region including economic，social，cultural and intellectual connections that might serve as prerequisites for the Asia Pacific Community. It is noticed that the economic connections in Asia-Pacific region are already well-established，and that social and cultural connections are headed in the right direction as well. This leaves us the issue of forging intellectual connections not only between the scholars and academics but also between ordinary people. It is essential for people in general to show more interest in a shared history of mankind，of the nature，and of our planet.At no other time in history have connections throughout the Asia-Pacific region been stronger than they are today. And so，if the people of every country in the region would put a little more effort into reinforcing their economic，social，cultural and intellectual connections at various levels，then we will see a rise in mutual interdependence throughout the region. Issues may remain in terms of interstate relations，national interests，national sovereignty and territory，but if we can strengthen connections in these other areas，it would increase the likelihood that an Asia Pacific Community can be formed.Among other states，Australia and China have played key roles in promoting cooperation in Asia-Pacific region. Australia brings great assets and strengths to the challenges and opportunities of the Asia-Pacific century，along with real commitment and energy. Australian security and prosperity is increasingly defined by what is happening in Asia. In recognition of that fact，the Australian Government，building on the finest traditions of Australian foreign policy，has been actively enhancing，at every level，our engagement with the region. It has been doing so by strengthening partnerships with its neighbors，both bilaterally and regionally，by playing an active role in existing regional groupings，and by working to shape a new regional architecture that will meet the needs of its region and the world well into the future.And for China，it is pursuing all round cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region in the spirit of reform and innovation，and making efforts to help shape the region’s bright future. China’s development offers opportunity to both the Asia-Pacific，which accounts for 40 percent of the world population，around half of world trade，and 57 percent of global GDP，and the rest of the world. China has also provided international public goods，both tangible and intangible，in a time of weak global economic recovery.China is actively pushing forward the building of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific（FTAAP），a strategic initiative that is critical for the long-term prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region and an institutional mechanism that will ensure an open economy in the region. The most important thing is that China offers a sustainable and inclusive development philosophy，or development ideas with universal significance and Chinese characteristics. China is indispensable to global economic governance. Since China’s reform and opening up，flows of commodities，capital and people have surged across the nation’s border.In conclusion，Asia-Pacific is a very vast region in term of geographical definition，and it is even vaster in term of political，security and economic spheres. 21st Century is Asia-Pacific’s century and Asia-Pacific becomes the world’s center of strategic weight which will involve increased regional influence over global economic，political and security affairs along with pressures. In addition，there are so many sub-regional cooperation arrangements in Asia-Pacific but none of these existing architectures can present the whole region.To replace existing regional arrangements，Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has proposed an initiative to create an “Asia Pacific community” by 2020，a new regional institution that would bind the countries of Asia，Oceania and the eastern Pacific as a community. But at the time being，the proposal could face an uphill task in trying to harness the world’s biggest powers into a single institution. And it would be hard to put into practice in term of geographical condition，existing regional arrangements，leadership and decision-making mechanism.So while Asian Community is still in an idea，we should improve existing regional arrangements and mechanisms to promote cooperation in Asia-Pacific region，and we also should improve potential for interconnectivity in this region including economic，social，cultural and intellectual connections，and strengthen ties among individuals and private sectors in the region that might serve as prerequisites for the Asia Pacific Community while the major roles played by Australia and China in the region，should be seriously considered.