The conclusions of the symposium will surely find a place (at least informally) in the policy-making process of Japan, and perhaps more broadly.

There was a similar symposium at Aoyama Gaku-in in Tokyo on Friday 12 March, on the East Asian Community. This symposium was also populated with high level academics, such as Korea’s former Ambassador to the US and Foreign Minister, Han Sun-joo, China’s former Ambassador to France Wu Jianmin and Japan’s former Ambassador to the United Nations Taniguchi Makoto. There are simply too many high-level academics in Tokyo this week by sheer coincidence. The Friday meeting was really a by-and-for-Japanese-only affair, with most presentations in Japanese, although English translation was provided. The output from that conference will only travel as far as Japan.

The nationality of the presenters at the JIIA symposium was also interesting and deliberate. First up, the representatives of Northeast Asia – Shiraishi Takashi (Japan), Gong Ro Myung (Korea), and Wang Li Zhou (China). Former Indonesian Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirajuda, was due to come but could not at the last moment make it, so Tommy Koh (Singapore) was the only representative from Southeast Asia. Then came the ‘others’ – TJ Pempel and Ezra Vogel (US), Rajiv Sikri (India) and Peter Drysdale (Australia).

The consensus in the group of academics was clearly in favour of the East Asian Summit as opposed to ASEAN+3 – even Wang (China) was careful to note the value and significance of the 16 party grouping.

Hatoyama’s speech was forceful, if not ground breaking. That Hatoyama would chose to come and have words with the panellists (he could not attend the meeting at Aoyama) was significant. It is testimony that he continues to be interested in the EAC idea and is serious about promoting it. He made clear his determination to ‘break open’ Japan and pursue a kind of regionalism that will impact on Japan and the Japanese economy and society rather than pursue regionalism as it has been pursued in the past — in principle and if it does not require change — regionalism-elite and regionalism-lite . He showed determination to trump local interests, particularly the agricultural lobby, in the pursuit of Japan’s greater economic and political interests in the region.

Shiraishi Takashi, is always a sophisticated analyst. He revealed that the Hatoyama administration had recently approved a plan for regional scientific and technical cooperation to be taken to the East Asia Summit. This is doubtless part of Japan’s efforts to lift the significance of the 16 party group and assert its leadership. Shiraishi also identified the biggest problem of the East Asia Summit as the lack of any ‘big’ success. In contrast to the ASEAN+3 group, which will soon activate the Chiang Mai Initiatives, the EAS has thus far managed a series of moderate, non-headline grabbing initiatives such as the ERIA. There will little debate with Shiraishi on that.

Gong Ro-myung focused on one issue – regional security cooperation, or more accurately, the lack there of. Gong stated that all the initiatives in East Asia on technical issues, economic and non-traditional security (pandemics, disaster relief, piracy etc) was not spilling over into cooperation in security. He contrasted this to the European experience, and urged the regional governments to let spill-over occur.

Tommy Koh was challenged by Funabashi Yoichi, editor of the Asahi Shimbun, on whether the ASEAN deserves to sit in the driver’s seat of regional cooperation arrangements. Koh’s response: ASEAN’s role as driver is by default; ASEAN may not be the best driver for regional cooperation but is only one with whom all were presently comfortable.

ASEAN’s leadership credentials were also challenged by Vogel, who asked Koh whether ASEAN was up to the task of managing a real (political or security) crisis. Koh’s response: ASEAN had done well the aftermath of cyclone Nargis, encouraging the military Junta in Burma to accept international food aid and alleviate the hunger, disease and suffering of the Burmese people; and in response to the tsunami, ASEAN head of states were able to call each other immediately to coordinate response and help set up an international pledging conference.

This was a highly interesting and important symposium, and  surely among the first of many more.