Challenges of building an East Asian community

Jusuf Wanandi, Jakarta

The idea of an East Asian community is now being seriously pursued following the decision at the ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and Korea) Summit in Vientiane at the end of 2004 to hold the first ever East Asian Summit in Kuala Lumpur at the end of 2005.

However, there are still big hurdles to overcome, and a step- by-step approach should be taken.

First, the region has seen the establishment of many regional institutions at the government and non-governmental level, starting with the Pacific Basin Economic Cooperation (PBEC) at the end of the 60s by regional business leaders.

This was followed by a tripartite process, the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), and subsequently by an intergovernmental process, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

These institutions began with no big vision in mind, except for the creation of an Asia Pacific community. They were quickly established, but their institutionalization was developed in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This was seen as the necessarily pragmatic way of regional community building, given that the region is very diverse.

When those regional institutions were not capable of assisting regional countries in overcoming the financial crisis of 1997, they lost a lot of credibility. Since then, all of them have gone through a process of change and adjustment to maintain their effectiveness and rationale.

This is what is happening with all of the above Asia Pacific institutions, including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Sub- regional institutions, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), are also facing the same challenges. ASEAN still has to overcome the Myanmar political crisis.

Another hurdle is ASEAN's unity and leadership in the East Asian community. In the ASEAN+3 process, the leadership is being provided by ASEAN, while in an East Asian Summit the ASEAN members will be represented separately. Its leading role will diminish and will be taken over by the bigger members.

ASEAN has just embarked on its ASEAN Community project that encompasses economic, security and sociocultural fields. This will enable ASEAN to act together and lead the bigger regional institution. Japan and China will not be able to do this for some time to come.

Also, the region should not have two processes with the same purpose, namely the ASEAN+3 and the East Asian Summit. This is redundant and counterproductive. The idea of an East Asian community as now proposed cannot be the same as the one proposed by former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir a decade ago. The region faces new challenges and new realities. Countries such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and India have a "footprint" in East Asia due to their contributions to regionalism and their participation in the economies, politics and security of the region.

That is why East Asia should be understood in geostrategic terms, including geopolitics and geoeconomics. That is why the East Asian Summit should include India, Australia and New Zealand, and on some critical security issues, such as global terrorism and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. has to be brought in. The U.S. will accept the idea if it is an open and transparent process. Her consent to the idea is important because in the last instance, the U.S. is the guarantor of peace and stability in the region.

This is also the reason why the East Asian community should be embedded in APEC, which is the most important regional institution. APEC's annual summits are defining the region. It is imperative that APEC be made more relevant. For that, economic cooperation should remain the focus of APEC, and the U.S. and East Asia should be more committed to APEC.

Thus far the U.S. has not given much reaction to the idea of an East Asian community, because she is preoccupied with efforts to overcome global terrorism and with developments in the Middle East. In addition, the U.S. has not taken the development seriously because there still are serious problems between China and Japan despite increased economic ties.

The position of Indonesia and some ASEAN countries is to include other countries (India, Australia and New Zealand) in the East Asian Summit. The broadening of members beyond the ASEAN+3 is to keep a balance in the East Asian community. It is also meant to show to the U.S. the openness and transparency of the process.

The East Asian Summit at the end of the year in Kuala Lumpur should be held under conditions, modalities and terms of reference that ensure the vision for peace, stability and progress in East Asia can be achieved. This includes complementariness (not duplication) between the summit and the ASEAN+3 process; the broadening of membership, namely ASEAN+3 (China, Japan, Korea) plus 3 (India, Australia and New Zealand), for balance and inclusiveness in East Asia; and a clearly defined set of institutions, programs and other important issues.

The writer is cofounder, member of the Board of Trustees and senior fellow of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).