Development of regionalism in Europe and the successful rise of the European Union created a trend that saw regionalism as a new strategic option in the post-Cold War era. Consequently, various types of organizations and arrangements were established to pursue regionalism in many different regions of the world. The Global Financial Crisis that began in 2008, however, has formed new dynamics in the discourse of regionalism as the Western order which had been considered as the global standard is declining and Asia, especially China, is rising and becoming the new focal point of the world. Subsequently, regionalism in the 21st century requires a more comprehensive and sophisticated approach. Unlike Europe, nationalism and territorial disputes have remained as critical issues in Asia, even though economic interdependence has grown deeper. It is harder still to say that common values and identity are shared in Asia. This raises questions concerning the factors of regionalism in the 21st century and ways to develop regionalism in Asia. In addition, the advent of the G20 forum, which was mandated to overcome the financial crisis, creates a new dynamic at the level of global governance. This brings up the issues of positioning the role of regionalism in relation to global governance.

The East Asia Institute (EAI) invited Muthiah Alagappa, Distinguished Senior Fellow from the East-West Center on September 15, 2010 to assess regionalism in 21st Century Asia. He introduced the shifting circumstances of Asia and the world, and presented the issues of the relationship between regionalism and global governance, ways to consolidate the proliferation of regional arrangements, community building in Asia, and orientation of the East Asian Summit. Leading experts from South Korea participated in the discussion and exchanged their views on key elements of regionalism in the 21st century, the sequence for developing regionalism in Asia and the role of regionalism in Asia. The following is a summary of Muthiah Alagappa’s presentation and the discussion that followed.

Presentation

Shifting Circumstances of Asia and the World

Regionalism in Asia is now taken as a given as well as a positive development. Yet historically, East Asia has been defensive and reactive to the development of regionalism in other parts of the world. There was the concern that regionalism might form an economic block that would cause problems for the East Asian economy which has been heavily dependent upon international trade. This tendency has changed since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 which triggered a movement towards regionalism in East Asia. Still, the Chiang Mai Initiative, a typical example of this movement, was largely a bilateral swap arrangement rather than a full-fledged regional arrangement.

Circumstances in Asia, however, have altered dramatically. Asia has become an important region and possibly a central driver of the global economy and international politics. Today, Asia is home to major global powers like China, Japan, India, and South Korea. The United States is very much a part of East Asia, even though it is not physically or geographically located in the region. Many Asian countries are now members of the G20, which is now the main global forum. Further, the concerns and interests of Asian powers transcend the region and span several regions. Many issues of concern to Asian countries, such as climate change, energy, even security issues like nuclear and missile proliferation, can only, if at all possible, be dealt with at the global level. Circumstances in which East Asian regionalism initially started being considered have been dramatically changed as of today. Can the power, interest, and concerns of those global players in East Asia be effectively contained and addressed within regional arrangements? What is or should be the role of regionalism in this changing context?

Consolidation of Proliferating Regional

Arrangement to Regulate Major Powers

Over the past forty years of regionalism in Asia, the number of regional institutions has increased from one or two to forty in East Asia, which includes both South East Asia and North East Asia. It’s hard to see any building block approach or consolidation. Institutions have been added without any envelope organization under which some of the existing institutions can be operated. Thus, it is important to arrange regional institutions properly so that they will be able to regulate any particular issue in an effective manner. This is important because of the regulative function of regional institutions that modifies the behavior of member countries and manages the major powers in the region. China’s recent orientation of behavior concerning the South China Sea, however, raises a question as to whether East Asian regionalism can perform this function. Currently, there seems to be an assumption that by expanding ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) to the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum), bringing in all the major powers to the table, this regulative function could be obtained in some way as they balance each other off.

Community Building in Asia

Most discussions concerning regionalism focus on community building. The ASEAN Vision 2020 statement says that forming a community in East Asia is a shared vision among ASEAN leaders and indicates the three pillars of it, as Political-Security Community, Economic Community and Socio-Cultural Community. In this way, community can be defined in many ways from not going to war with each other, sharing common economic policies or markets, to giving decision making power to a supranational body which can make ‘authoritative allocation of values’ within that regional grouping. But is community building an essential goal for regionalism in Asia? Why have some officials and scholars become addicted to this term? Can we do without it? Is community building possible in East Asia that comprises about one-third of the world’s population?

East Asian Summit

By inviting the United States and Russia as members at the last meeting at Hanoi, the EAS (East Asian Summit) is becoming a broader orientation than what was originally designed. It can be evaluated in a positive way as all significant actors are becoming part of the forum, but also in a negative way as broadening might obscure the purpose of it. Should the EAS have an Asian orientation or a global one? Given that Asia is becoming the central driver of the global economy and most of the major players are located in Asia, it would be logical for the EAS to take that orientation to become the primary overarching institution for East Asia...(Continued)

Muthiah Alagappa is a senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Discussants

Young Jong Choi (Catholic University of Korea)

Min Gyo Koo (Seoul National University)

Dong-Hwi Lee (Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security)

Shin-hwa Lee (Korea University)

Yong Wook Lee (Korea University)