Having been lectured by the West on corporate governance after the Asian financial crisis some of the Asian countries are doubtless looking with polite interest at Western crony capitalism. (I am pleased to say almost of our examples of corporate misgovernance in our course came from Wall Street and London in the 1920 and we did not join the then fad of saying Asian corporate governance was somehow inherently worse that that in OECD countries.)

Nor will – or should they – want to harmonize their tax systems on Australian or US lines. Having attracted so much capital with competitive tax systems why throw away that advantage by joining an EU style creeping uniformity? As Andrew says, any reference to the EU would be an instant turn-off for Asian countries rivalling Switzerland as a haven for EU investors.

Whether an East Asian forum becomes a counter to the EU and OECD vision of economic policy may be an interesting question.

Andrew MacIntyre tells us that the idea will have traction in the region but he does not tell us why.

What are the incentives for the different set of countries – both developed and developing countries – to join the APC? Most countries won’t have any interest in loose regional cooperation that cannot provide any tangible benefit. When APEC was proposed, it was an idea that suited its time – open regionalism with voluntary liberalisation when liberalisation was a bad word. Member countries benefited from the non – threatening manner of economic liberalisation within APEC.

Andrew notes that since no leaders in Asia spoke against it, it was a good sign diplomatically. A better appreciation of Asia culture would explain the non-response as disagreement as Asians choose remain silent and allow everyone to ‘save face.’

At a time of proliferation of regional groupings, spelling out clearly the additional benefit from this initiative or positioning it in relation to the whole region’s economic political and security interests is what is required.