Three cheers for the EAS: A bullish view of Asian regionalism Michael Vatikiotis The Straits Times Asia News Network/Singapore

Amid all the hype and humbug about last week's East Asian Summit, the significance of the event for Southeast Asia has been missed. Observers scrambled to point out how dysfunctional such a gathering turned out to be because of the quarrel over war memories that pits China and South Korea against Japan, but they overlooked two major milestones for Southeast Asia, the region at the center of it all.

Of primary importance was the fact that Southeast Asia, itself imperfectly incorporated under the ASEAN umbrella, successfully projected its political centrality in a wider region fast becoming a function of the economic weight of China and India.

Secondly, by sharply criticizing Myanmar's human rights record the regional grouping that everyone likes to criticize for being weak on principal, set an example for the wider region that China of course, but most especially India have yet to live up to. Reinforcing this trend, ASEAN leaders agreed in Kuala Lumpur to move towards framing a rules-based ASEAN charter that will enshrine basic human rights.

These are important achievements for a collection of ten disparate and unequal states. Imagine ASEAN's Latin American or South Asian counterparts coordinating political engagement with its superpower neighbors.

In fact, whilst ASEAN was able to persuade China to accept a more inclusive membership, India could not stop China from influencing the recent summit of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation nations over the membership of Afghanistan.

The issue of Southeast Asia's political centrality is of critical importance to the region's security in the 21st century. Wedged between emerging India and China, Southeast Asia fears becoming a strategic buffer zone, pulled in one direction or the other by the shifting winds of geopolitical influence. To establish for itself a steering role in a nascent East Asian community is perhaps the best way to avoid being totally squeezed.

Look how the United Kingdom has managed to maintain its relevance to the European Union, despite remaining aloof from monetary union. Too many observers look for substance in groupings like this, when effective diplomacy and having a say is often the key objective.

That's why Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi could rightly claim the inaugural East Asian Summit a success. In fact, from a Southeast Asia perspective it was more successful than anticipated. China did not dominate the forum -- Beijing failed to prevent the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand.

ASEAN established its steering role in a formal way -- the ASEAN secretariat has been tasked with formulating cooperative programs. And in a small way, ASEAN did manage to play a role in pushing the stiff-lipped Confucian powers, China, Japan and South Korea, who are quarreling over their bitter war memories into a room together. No one else is trying to head off this potentially dangerous rift.

In fact, China's preoccupation with historical correctness and face diminished its potential leadership role in Kuala Lumpur and exposed a weakness in its putative regional leadership that has more than faint historical echoes. China's forward role in wider Asia, even at the height of dynastic power, was always hedged by a prim and haughty posture that for instance made it illegal for Chinese citizens to emigrate.

China's diplomatic sway over its Asian hinterland was more often than not indirectly maintained, which explained why European powers so easily displaced China from the 16th century. If modern China can't overcome hurtful feelings towards Japan over a war that ended sixty years ago, how will it steer a modern Asian bloc?

Southeast Asia by contrast, although lacking military or political clout, has come a long way in the modern world of multilateral engagement and agreement. Its governments have won prominent seats at international forums like the Geneva-based WTO and UN Human Rights Commission.

There is a track record of global peacemaking, although even contemporary ASEAN diplomats forget the role their predecessors played in forging an international peace agreement on Cambodia more than a decade ago. Neither India nor China can yet notch up achievements like this on the global stage. Doesn't this make Southeast Asia a worthy regional player, quite apart from its collective marketplace of 550 million people?

So there was no grand master plan unveiled for the EAS in Kuala Lumpur. The EAS remains a "black box", to use the terminology coined by irritated U.S. officials. But does anyone argue the G8 should be shut down for being a conclave of larger global powers at the exclusion of others, or for not having a tangible action plan?

Talk shops and forums play important roles as an interface for global leaders in a world where frequent contact helps build relationships and avoid misunderstanding and conflict. Leaders can meet, if they like, once a year at the United Nations.

But in reality, a regional forum like EAS, or even more than one, offers opportunities for leaders from the same geographical neighborhood to discuss issues of common interest and concern. So what if the whole world isn't invited.

The writer is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.