Instead of forming a region-wide Free Trade Agreement (FTA), they opted for a series of bilateral FTAs. In particular, Japan, China, and Korea arranged FTA’s individually with the whole of ASEAN. Instead of upgrading the ASEAN Plus Three summit into the East Asian Summit as was recommended by the EAVG, another summit of ASEAN Plus Six was established. The leaders of Japan, China, and Korea began their own annual meeting in 2008, but they have not voiced a convincing message as to how to build an EAC.
In September 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed a new initiative to build an Asia-Pacific Community. Most recently, new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama expressed his own ambition to build an EAC. It is not clear yet whether these new initiatives really add momentum to the decade-long debate on the East Asian economic integration, or whether they divert it.
For me, the key points are: do we really want to establish an EAC, and if so, for what purpose? Without a convincing answer to these questions, any talks on the make-up of an EAC are simply beside the point. Of course, there are many well-documented analyses of the economic benefits expected from an East Asian FTA, and the political and security advantages of building an EAC are well known. But these arguments do not seem strong enough to overcome the obstacles that are hindering progress toward the EAC, which include the issues of historical legacy, territorial disputes, heterogeneous political and economic systems, development gaps, and so on.
It may help to ask the same question in a different way. What will happen if we do not establish an EAC? Intra-regional trade and investment will continue to grow thanks to the dynamic vitality of individual Asian economies, buttressed by the complementary structure that exists between Asian economies. It is unimaginable to anticipate a military confrontation in East Asia even without a collective security arrangement in the region. Then, one may ask, why an EAC?
The answer lies in looking at an EAC beyond its regional boundaries. The conventional reasoning that an EAC will bring common prosperity and peace within the region is too narrow-minded. Instead, the role of an EAC must be framed in a global context. By serving as a unified economic voice for East Asia, an EAC can make significant contributions to the prosperity and peace of the whole world.
Specifically, East Asia is deeply integrated with the global economy. The world’s economic power has been shifting to East Asia and the pace of this shift is accelerating in the midst of the global economic crisis. East Asia is therefore already loaded with increasing responsibility for leading the sustainable and balanced growth of the world economy. In this context, East Asia must fulfill its responsibility by carrying out two major tasks: maintaining its own economic dynamism and undertaking more active participation in setting the global economic order.
Both of these tasks require the creation of an EAC. The economic vitality of the region depends upon the institutionalisation of East Asian economic cooperation, beginning with an East Asian FTA. And in order to secure a stronger voice in global forums, East Asia needs to draw together collective ideas and positions about how to govern the world economy in the post-crisis era.
With a sense of this heightened ambition, I hope that the unfocused debate that continues over the EAC can be transformed into a more focused and practical dialogue.
This article is drawn from a contribution to ‘Japan SPOTLIGHT’ March/April 2010
Kyung-Tae Lee is President, Institute for International Trade, Korea International Trade Association.
While some of the proposals may on their own have some merits, some of them may have acted as distractions and have the effect to hinder the progress of establishing an East Asia community.
East Asian countries need to unite and have in mind a common regional interest that assists its members’ interests.
They need to look forward, as opposed to look backward.
Some issues should be left as bygone as bygone, and people should be focused on the common interest that will be better for every member from Pareto efficiency point of view, if I can borrow a jargon.
Daer mr KT Lee, while I admire your vision for EAC, Iam sure you are daydreaming indeed for a new Institution in this area-here everything isagainst any new thing ; all over the world, EU is the only golden case of success adn enjoying all the benefits of Integratgion for years indeed; their cazse canot be replicated in this region -just because everything is against any worthwhile effort-history,georaphy,politics, religion, hence no communicatin for mutual benefit; many neighbours are so hostile that nothing moves -take thecase of Inda-Pak animosity for years;
while since early 60s, I may tell you that doyens of theory-Prof Harry Johnson,Jagdish Bhagwati so also Japanaese doyens like H.Kitamura, Koiima and many more have been talking of integration but waned that nothing can be done in this region;
In the new millennium,the bandwagon of regional integration ids on a roll once again.But we shopuld remember that if an open wotrld trading system continues to be our goal,important issues aarise as to whether we should welcome these RTAs and we may come up to condemn the RTAs as insittutions that undermine the multilateral system;
so in new century, for developing countries,bet strategy is to focus on world markets;
AsNobellaureate Paul Krugman, Stiglitz raised sevral disturbing questions about RTAs-why many mor e RTAs are coming up in differgions just to gain some petty gains ;may be what are the proble,ms within the GATT framework(that has worked for years so well)that nations are seeking RTA benefits ; pity indeed
For past two decades I worked with sir Hans Singer, emeritus Prof at IDS,Sussex and prepared 25 books on New worldorder issues;
Give me your IDmail;will send the flyer for your joy and perusal and also open yuor eyes to reality happening world over adn may help you to come out the narrow Asian E vision;
Rameshwrtandon