Forming E. Asia union "difficult"

Don Pathan, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

It may be comparing apples and oranges, but there is a growing interest among Asian and European academics and policy-makers, that their respective regions have a lot to learn from one another.

A recently concluded three-day conference in Paris brought together academics, policy-makers and statesmen from both regions to debate on region building in East Asia and Europe.

Both sides agreed there was lots to learn from one another but also that there was no point in emulating the other's model.

Region building did not come easy for the Europeans, who managed to come up with perhaps the most developed form of integration in the form of the European Union.

Their Asian counterparts on the other hand have long toyed with the idea of an East Asian union as a major actor in the global community, but they have also had to acknowledge their limitations.

Indeed, East Asian nationals are reluctant to put aside their differences, sovereignty and historical animosity so that the region can move closer and compete effectively as a global force.

The EU is expanding from 15 to 25 members by including a number of central and East European countries. The EU is also looking at a constitution.

Efforts have been made to push forward a common East Asian identity -- at least at the nation-state level, as seen in the ASEAN-Plus-Three (China, Japan and South Korea) arrangement.

ASEAN members generally agree on the need to further institutionalize the regional grouping with perhaps a secretariat to look after the workload and follow up on the agreements made by the 13 countries. Yet they differ on the formation of the new arrangement, debating whether it should have a life of its own or remain an "extension" of the 10-member regional grouping.

Since the end of the Cold War, nations in East Asia have seen themselves as floating in spheres of influence of China, and the United States, a very important trading partner whose bilateral defense pacts with Japan, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines form the basis for security arrangements for the region. And there's Taiwan, an island-state regarded by Beijing as a renegade province that could be crushed in a heartbeat by the powerful People's Liberation Army if it ever declares independence.

The U.S.-China equation and the spheres of influence they have created in East Asia are a point of concern for the Europeans, said Panitan Wattanayagorn, a leading security expert at Chulalongkorn University.

Europe is afraid it will be sidelined amid growing Chinese military and economic influence, and the U.S.-led global war against terrorism. The Europeans would like East Asia to emulate their model to the extent that member states won't fall too deep into the American and Chinese spheres of influence, Panitan said.

But coming up with a model as sophisticated and advanced as the Europeans may not be a walk in the park, most analysts admit.

As participants at the Paris conference rightly pointed out, there is no "We the people" in East Asia, whereas the EU is currently working on a common constitution.

East Asian nations are still bogged down with the idea of sovereignty, not to mention historical animosity, while the Europeans have managed to turn the page on their violent past.

History in East Asia is still exploited for political gain, as seen as in Thai-Burmese relations and the Sino-Japanese situation.

Besides the U.S.-led war against global terrorism, regional security among the states continues to be of great interest to both sides with the debate centered on the role of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

There are questions over whether ARF is capable of moving "confidence building measures" to "preventive diplomacy" and take up other sensitive issues such as the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits and the political deadlock in Burma -- one of the world's main sources of heroin and methamphetamines.

Some argued that the ARF will never move beyond a mere "talk shop" if ASEAN remains at the helm of the forum.

And, there is the question of whether the ARF has what it takes to handle sensitive security issues if it does not expand its representation to include defense ministers.

But, if East Asia continues to cling to the sacred notion of sovereignty, instead of giving the very idea of regionalism a chance, "intrusive" bodies that might undertake preventive diplomacy, much less conflict resolution, will never see the light of day.