Firstly, the ‘great game’, and secondly regionalism.

Great game. I had said that “movement towards an EAC must be understood as game played between the great powers, China and the US.” And, quite correctly, you have pointed out that it is a game played principally between Japan and China.

But my point is that while it is a negotiation between Japan and China about the terms on which they might jointly lead in Asia, for the purposes of predicting developments in EAC, the US factor matters. The whole EAC is essentially a response to US neglect during the Bush era, and a resurgent US in Asia under Barack might just take the wind out the sails of the EAC. Although, the current Futenma problems counts against this.

Essentially, if the US proves too difficult, then Japan will go to China and request terms.

Regarding regionalism, my specific goal was to forecast ‘no change’ for the EAC – despite the unusually specific talk of EAC at the trilateral summit. Now, some might think that the Trilateral Summit is an inappropriate place for East Asian Regionalism to begin, because ASEAN and others should be involved in the process from outset.

But if we look at how real regionalism is actually conducted, there is normally a core of strong states who cooperate first. Their leadership brings others in. For East Asia, the strong states to be the core are China and Japan (lesser extent Korea, which would be inexorably drawn in almost regardless) – who meet sub-regionally at this Trilateral Summit. If deep East Asian regionalism is going to occur, I imagine the Trilateral Summit will play that leading role – regardless of what ASEAN thinks.

China’s strategic advantages in delaying the formation of an EAC are patently obvious, but neither Japan nor China would benefit from delaying an East Asia Community economically. For Japan, the EAC is important for its domestic economic growth prospects. As a senior METI official put it, “We need to think of Asia as our ‘jun naijuu’ (semi-domestic demand/market) [courtesy of Jerry Curtis' speech to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan]. The question for prospective East Asian participants in an ASEAN+3 grouping or an ASEAN+6 grouping is whether they want to participate in a ‘community’ that is dominated by China or not. One of the EU’s secrets of success is the fact that no one power dominates the group.

As for the G2, the question here is whether it actually exists as an axis of cooperation, and whether it could deal with anything more than bilateral issues without having to enlist the cooperation of other powers. Currently the G2 seems to have taken a back seat to the G20.