Do Institutions Matter

Do Institutions
Matter?
Regional Institutions and
Regionalism in East Asia
RSIS Monograph No. 13
Edited by
See Seng Tan
RSIS MONOGRAPH NO. 13
Do Institutions Matter?
Regional Institutions and
Regionalism in East Asia
edited by
See Seng Tan
Report of the Study Group for

The Sentosa Roundtable on Asian Security
2007–2008
Multilateralism & Regionalism Programme

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
i
Copyright © 2008 each author for his/her own chapter
Published by
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Nanyang Technological University
South Spine, S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue
Singapore 639798
Telephone: 6790 6982 Fax: 6793 2991
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.idss.edu.sg
First published in 2008
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
Body text set in 11/15 point Warnock Pro
Produced by BOOKSMITH
([email protected])
ISBN 978–981–08–0854–9
ii
The RSIS/IDSS Monograph Series
Monograph No. 1
Neither Friend Nor Foe
Myanmar’s Relations with Thailand Since 1988
Monograph No. 2
China’s Strategic Engagement with the New ASEAN
Monograph No. 3
Beyond Vulnerability?
Water in Singapore-Malaysia Relations
Monograph No. 4
A New Agenda for the ASEAN Regional Forum
Monograph No. 5
The South China Sea Dispute in Philippine Foreign Policy
Problems, Challenges and Prospects
Monograph No. 6
The OSCE and Co-operative Security in Europe
Lessons for Asia
Monograph No. 7
Betwixt and Between
Southeast Asian Strategic Relations with the U.S. and China
Monograph No. 8
Fading Away?
The Political Role of the Army in Indonesian Transition to
Democracy, 1998–2001
Monograph No. 9
The Post-Tsunami Reconstruction of Aceh and the
Implementation of the Peace Agreement
Monograph No. 10
Post-Suharto Civil-Military Relations in Indonesia
Monograph No. 11
People’s ASEAN and Governments’ ASEAN
Monograph No. 12
Forgetting Osama Bin Munqidh, Remembering Osama bin Laden
The Crusades in Modern Muslim Memory
Monograph No. 13
Do Institutions Matter?
Regional Institutions and Regionalism in East Asia
iii
On 1 January 2007, the S. Rajaratnam School of Inter-
national Studies (RSIS) was inaugurated at Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. It was originally
established as the Institute of Defence and Strategic
Studies (IDSS) on 30 July 1996. The IDSS remains as
a key component within the RSIS, focusing on security
research, while the School takes over its teaching func-
tions. The RSIS will:
a. Provide a rigorous professional graduate educa-
tion with a strong practical emphasis,
b. Conduct policy-relevant research in defence,
national security, international relations, inter-
national political economy, strategic studies and
diplomacy, and
c. Build a global network of like-minded profes-
sional schools.
iv
Contents
Preface vii
Glossary ix

Introduction 1
See Seng Tan
1 East Asian Regionalism 19

A Backgrounder on an Eclectic Alternative for
Analysis
Christopher B. Roberts
2 The Primacy of Westphalian Logics 31

in East Asian Regionalism
Yongwook Ryu
3 A Problem-Driven Approach 39
to East Asian Regionalism
Shin-wha Lee
4 In Praise of Issue-Based Institutionalism 52

Ways Forward for ASEAN and East Asian
Regionalism
Shiping Tang
v
5 ASEAN’s “Leadership” of East Asian Regionalism 55
Problems and Prospects
Ron Huisken
6 No Community Sans Concert? 62

The Role of Great Powers in Institutionalizing
an Asian Security Community
Tang Siew Mun
Contributors 69
vi
Preface
W
hether and how regional institutions and the ongoing
process of institutionalization in East Asia contribute
to the quest for the security, peace and stability of that
region is the concern of interest to the Sentosa Roundtable on
Asian Security 2007–2008, the second of three annual roundtables
conducted between 2006 and 2009. Made possible by the generous
support of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation of Japan, the Sentosa
Roundtable, hosted by the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS) in Singapore, brings together leading analysts,
scholars, practitioners and activists of Asian international affairs
for two days of frank and constructive discussions on the current
and future state of Asian security. In particular, the discussions
focus on prospects for transforming the Asian region into a secu-
rity community, where regional states commit to peaceful relations
and the avoidance of war with one another.
To that end, the purpose of the Sentosa Roundtable Study
Group (hereafter SRSG), comprising a small collective of subject
specialists, is to produce assessments of the specific issues under
consideration, so as to facilitate the subsequent roundtable dis-
cussions. The SRSG is usually held three or so months before the
Roundtable. The first of these, SRSG 2006–2007, examined the
links between economics and East Asian security. The second,
SRSG 2007–2008, looks at the relationship between institutions
and security. The third, SRSG 2008–2009, will explore the nexus
between cultural factors and the security of East Asia. In particu-
lar, the second SRSG, whose report provided the contents of this
monograph, assesses the relevance of regional inter-governmental
institutions—the ASEAN Regional Forum, the ASEAN Plus Three,
the East Asia Summit and so forth—to regional security, stabil-
ity and community building in East Asia. The deliberations of an
vii
October 2007 meeting were further embellished by a series of
independently commissioned papers (see the following chapters).
A draft version of this monograph served as the basis for discus-
sion at the second Sentosa Roundtable held in Sentosa, Singapore,
in January 2008.
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following
people, without whom this report would not have been possible:
first, the six authors who contributed their respective reflections
below; second, Ralf Emmers and Hiro Katsumata, who generously
shared their expertise and time; third, colleagues at the S. Rajarat-
nam School who provided administrative assistance; and, finally,
Masato Seko and Eriko Tada of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation
(Eriko has since left the foundation), who offered invaluable coun-
sel and support.
See Seng Tan
viii
Glossary
AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area

ARF ASEAN Regional Forum
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
APT ASEAN Plus Three (or ASEAN+3)
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CBM Confidence building measure
EAC East Asian Community
EAEC East Asia Economic Caucus
EAEG East Asia Economic Grouping
EAS East Asia Summit
EAVG East Asia Vision Group
FTA Free trade agreement
KEDO Korean Energy Development Organization
MRM Mutual reassurance measures
OSCE Organization of Security and Cooperation in
Europe
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation
SAPTA South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement
SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization
SOM Senior Officials’ Meeting
SPT Six Party Talks
TAC Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
ZOPFAN Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality
ix
x
Introduction
See Seng Tan
D
o institutions matter to regional security and regional com-
munity building in East Asia? The diplomatic landscape of
post-Cold War Asia boasts a plethora of regional institutions,
such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC), the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) and the East Asia
Summit (EAS). Other than APEC, the rest of these institutions (ARF,
APT and EAS) all share a common hub in the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN). This latter group of ASEAN-based institutions
has long been known for its collective emphasis on open regionalism, soft
institutionalism, flexible consensus, and comprehensive and cooperative
security. However, ASEAN’s attempt to move to a more rules-based
regionalism implies the possibility of institutional creep in Asia. For the
foreseeable future, the emergence of such institutionalized regionalism
is likely restricted to Southeast Asia, although the Six Party Talks (SPT)
are increasingly seen by some as a building block for a new security
architecture for Northeast Asia, whether in combination with or as an
alternative to the extant Cold War-era system of U.S.-led alliances.
Arguably, the emerging institutionalization of East Asia puts the
region’s evolving security order somewhere between a balance of power,
on one hand, and a regional community with the relevant institutional
and normative attributes, on the other.1 That said, while most analysts
of Asian security do not dispute this argument, they nonetheless disa-
gree on whether the character of extant East Asian regionalism actually
1
Do Institutions Matter? Regional Institutions and Regionalism in East Asia
facilitates the formation of East Asia into a fully-fledged community.

Some of these differences are evident in the following contributions to
this study. Comprising deliberations from a workshop conducted at the
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore and a series
of commissioned chapters by leading and upcoming analysts of Asian
international relations, the study addresses conceptual and empirical
concerns regarding regionalism, regional order and regional community
in East Asia.
Aims of This Study

Whether and how regional institutions shape the security of the East
Asian region and facilitate the building of regional community therein
are concerns crucial to the Sentosa Roundtable,2 a three-year project
sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation of Japan. In Sanskrit, the
term sentosa means “contentment” or “satisfaction”. The Roundtable
explores the simultaneous existence and emergence of great powers in
the region—including China, India, Japan, the United States and aspir-
ants such as North Korea—and, together with member states of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the ramifications of
their interactions for Asian security order and community. The project
aims to find pathways to peace and security—contentment and satis-
faction, in short—among these countries as they relate to one another
amid contemporary regional conditions of growing interdependence
and institutionalization.
Against that backdrop, this monograph has four aims. First, it assesses
whether the region’s institutions—such as the ASEAN Regional Forum,
the ASEAN Plus Three, the East Asia Summit and so forth—and, cru-
cially, the way they relate to one another, matter in the establishment of
East Asia’s regional security order and in the formation of the regional
community. In short, whether institutions are central or adjunct to
regional order and regional community building is a key concern of this
monograph.
Second, the monograph explores whether the so-called “noodle bowl”
of regional institutions in East Asia resembles a strategically coherent
2
Introduction
regional architecture and foundation for an East Asian Community, or

complicates the community-building process as a result of competing
mandates, agendas and conflicting memberships and definitions of
“region-ness”. This question is of fundamental concern, given the diver-
gence in views among Asian countries regarding which regional institu-
tion constitutes the most appropriate foundation upon which the East
Asia region should build the East Asian Community. This difference is
most evident in the debate over the ostensible role and membership of
the East Asia Summit.
Third, whether the utility of East Asian regional institutions is best
defined in geographical or in functional (i.e. issue-specific) terms is
another question of interest to this study. The general aim of issue-based
institutions is to solve common problems caused by interdependence.
There is therefore the possibility that functionally oriented institutions
can impede regionalism and hence community formation, because they
do not hold strictly to a geographically bounded conception of region
and specifications.3
Finally, the monograph assesses whether the region’s institutions,
in terms of their extant institutional design, process and practice, are
predominantly sociological, contractual or realpolitik (or a combination
of these) in orientation.4 Given the pervasive adherence by East Asian
countries to principles like state sovereignty, territorial integrity and
non-interference—norms enshrined within the Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation (TAC), of which all EAS members are signatories—and
the continued existence in the region of Cold War-era bilateral security
alliances, it was clear that realpolitik considerations still predominate in
many facets of East Asian regionalism.
Architecture of this Study

There are six chapters in this monograph.
In Chapter 1, Christopher Roberts assesses the explanatory power
of the realist (realpolitik), neo-liberal (contractual) and constructivist
(sociological) perspectives in the study of East Asian regional institutions,
and argues in favour of an analytically eclectic approach that, in his view,
3
apprehends better the complexity of East Asian regional integration. For

Roberts, the “reality” is that “all the major paradigms add to the concep-
tual toolkit and provide valuable insight”. He understands integration as a
process that reflects a “spectrum” of behaviours. Accordingly, members of
regional institutions behave differently at different stages of “comprehen-
sive integration”. At a low level of integration, realpolitik-type behaviours
would likely predominate. At a high level of integration, contractual-
type behaviours emerge as the security dilemma is diminished through
economic interdependence and cooperative security arrangements. As
interdependence and cooperation increase, states become socialized
and assume a shared collective identity. And with the security “all but
mitigated”, a security community emerges with the concomitant emer-
gence of a stable peace among regional states. While Roberts rejects the
notion that international identities and practices cannot be changed, he
nonetheless believes that processes of integration and institutionalism
in Asia “will likely take several decades” before they take root.
In the second chapter, Yongwook Ryu argues the continued primacy
of the state sovereignty and non-interference norms in East Asia, as
evidenced by the practices and achievements of the region’s institutions.
ASEAN’s success has been in deepening economic integration among its
members, and in creating a diplomatic community among its elites. The
ARF progresses slowly in security cooperation as a result of its reliance
on the ASEAN Way of consultation and consensus. Ryu sees the forum
moving towards “a weak form of preventive diplomacy” as member
states participate in maritime security and disaster relief exercises. The
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) facilitates energy and eco-
nomic cooperation among its members, while prospects that the SPT
may eventually become a multilateral security regime for Northeast Asia
cannot be ruled out. Although all these institutions remain committed to
the norms of state sovereignty and non-interference, the most obdurate
of the lot in this regard remain the SCO and the SPT. Ryu sees the SCO
and SPT as potential competitors of the ARF in that all three institutions
are involved in security issues, and calls for a division of labour among
them. Ryu argues that East Asian institutions are “communicative arenas
in which participants exchange their different views on security issues,
4
Introduction
learn to understand the dominant international norms, attempt to per-

suade one another through principled argumentation, and alter each
other’s behaviour”. In short, they have succeeded in “norm building” in
support of the Westphalian order.
In Chapter 3, Shin-wha Lee calls for a problem-driven and issue-
specific approach to East Asian regionalism. Like her fellow contributors
in this volume, Lee does not think that the complexity of East Asia can
or should be reduced to a particular variant of institutionalism, whether
contractual, sociological or realpolitik. Like them, she argues that East
Asian countries remain fixated to “individual state-centric” thinking
where their security is concerned. In light of divergent strategic percep-
tions, competing national interests and different policy directions, the
task of establishing a regional security cooperation regime, she argues,
“that would satisfy all countries involved will be a tall order”. That said,
the establishment of such a regime can regularize dialogue and foster
understanding among Asian states, enhance confidence building and
mutual interest, build a “trade friendly and economically sound” region,
and promote regional peace and stability by establishing codes of con-
duct. However, none of the existing cooperative mechanisms, whether
ASEAN, the APT, the ARF or the EAS, as she notes, has “taken on a
central coordinating responsibility” for the East Asian region. Because
of the elemental role played by the United States in the region’s security
matters, Lee argues that regional institutionalism in East Asia can neither
be geographically-based nor exclusive. As such, issue-specificity is by
default the more probable basis for a viable East Asian regionalism.
The fourth chapter, by Shiping Tang, also argues for an issue-based
institutionalism so far as East Asian regionalism is concerned. He takes
umbrage with what he sees as the excessive reliance on theoretical
functionalism in institutional scholarship, which does not explain why
and how institutions change. Tang calls attention to Douglass North’s
distinction between organizations, which are collectives of actors in
social life, and institutions, which refer to the rules of social life. Like
his fellow contributors, Tang sees East Asian institutional progress as
essentially delimited by the shared commitment to sovereignty norms,
as evidenced by the ASEAN Way. The inability of East Asian groups to
5
develop more elaborate and enforceable rules is the reason why they
are properly considered “organizations” rather than “institutions”. For
Tang, the way forward to a rules-based regionalism—evolving from
organization to institution, in short—in East Asia is for regional groups
to build cooperation around specific issues and problems. In his view,
this would lead to the formulation of rules that underpin functional
cooperation—rules that provide the building blocks to a comprehensive
rule-oriented system. When that happens, the region’s groups can then
be truly considered institutions and not just organizations.
In Chapter 5, Ron Huisken evaluates ASEAN’s default monopoly
of East Asian regionalism, and finds the ability of the Association as
regional leader circumscribed by major power influence. According to
Huisken, ASEAN’s broad objective has been “to aspire to an hierarchi-
cal regional order that retains America’s dominant superpower position
while incorporating China in a regional great power position just below
it”. While ASEAN has succeeded at building regional order—and even
security community, the author contends—in Southeast Asia, he does not
think that ASEAN can accomplish the same where the wider East Asian
region is concerned, not especially if the Association is working alone.
ASEAN’s “game plan”, as Huisken puts it, “is to engineer deeper engage-
ment between and the development of collegiate instincts amongst the
major powers beyond the arena of Southeast Asia”—an aim that does not
comport with extant empirical realities. In this respect, despite encourag-
ing developments in East Asia, Huisken is concerned about the evident
shared reluctance in the two relationships of “irreducible importance”
within the region, namely, Sino-Japanese ties on one hand and Sino-U.S.
ties on the other, to move beyond longstanding caution and suspicion.
Instead, he argues that “all three powers [China, Japan and the United
States] are not yet prepared to subject their wider bilateral relationship
to the discipline and constraints of an institutionalized process”—a
resistance that does not bode well for the future of East Asia’s security. In
this regard, Huisken sees the crucial challenge for ASEAN arising from
Chinese engagement, and the uneven effects that can have on ASEAN
states and the sorts of countervailing moves by the Americans and the
Japanese that can elicit.
6
Introduction
The final chapter is by Tang Siew Mun. Mindful of the importance

of the great powers to East Asian security, Tang believes that no Asian
security community can ever be possible without the prior formation of
a concert among the major powers. This is exemplified by the reliance of
the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) on the commitment of non-
ASEAN signatories to the peaceful settlement of disputes for its success.
A concert of powers would dampen great-power rivalry and diminish the
prospect for great-power conflict in East Asia. While Tang concedes that
forming a concert among China, Japan and the United States would not be
easy, he nonetheless sees plausible cooperation among them on a shared
concern: the maintenance and enhancement of regional peace and stabil-
ity. Moreover, a viable concert would contribute to the rise of an inclusive,
cooperation-based regional security—as Tang puts it, “security against to
security with”—necessary to the formation of an Asian security community.
Such a community, he argues, can no longer rely on the ASEAN Way, but
“should be rule-based and with built-in safeguards to assure weaker states
that they would not be strong-armed by strong parties”.
Regional Institutions and Regionalism in East Asia

As noted earlier, the aims of this study are fourfold. First, it addresses the
question of whether East Asia’s institutions are adjunct or central to the
region’s security and community-building process. Second, it addresses
the issue of strategic or architectural coherence of East Asian institution-
alism, and assesses whether regional institutions complement or compete
against one another. Third, it addresses the concern of “issue-specificity”,
which several contributors see as the apposite basis of East Asian institu-
tionalism and regionalism. Finally, it addresses the theoretical question
of analytical and/or conceptual perspectives to the study of institutions
and regional order and community in East Asia.
How do the authors of this monograph respond to these aims?
Institutional Relevance
First, there is a general agreement among the chapters that regional
institutions contribute to the peace, security and stability of East Asia.
7
In one participant’s words, those institutions “function not only as the

arena for discussion, but also as a means to construct stable, elastic, and
adaptive regional community structure”.
At the same time, the contributors also agree that East Asia’s insti-
tutions are clearly limited—deliberately so—in terms of what they can
accomplish. At present, they are arguably more than mere adjuncts,
though far from being central elements, of regional order and commu-
nity. Yongwook Ryu argues that although Westphalian principles of state
sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states
continue to serve as the diplomatic foundation for the region’s institu-
tions, it nonetheless provides the social-cum-historical basis upon which
regional cooperation has developed and evolved. As Ryu has noted:
Regardless of their effectiveness, at the bare minimum, these organiza-
tions are communicative arenas in which participants exchange their
different views on security issues, learn to understand the dominant
international norms, attempt to persuade one another through princi-
pled argumentation, and alter each other’s behaviour.
Third, the effectiveness of East Asia’s institutions is inextricably linked

to the role and influence of the great powers. A common theme in all of
the following chapters is that no amount of institutional efficacy would
have been possible without the endorsement of and contributions by the
great powers—namely, China, Japan and the United States—to regional
security. In this regard, Tang Siew Mun argues that there can be no East
Asian community without a concert of great powers as its foundation.
On the other hand, Ron Huisken believes that all three powers identified
above “are not yet prepared to subject their wider bilateral relationship[s]
to the discipline and constraints of an institutionalized process”.
Fourth, in view of the salience of great powers to East Asian regional-
ism and regional security, Shiping Tang suggests that the (future) order
and community of East Asia may be hegemonic rather than cooperation-
based. He observes, for instance, that no institutional system—under-
stood in this context as a set of rules and principles—can emerge without
the imposition of order by a preponderant power, such as the United
States had done in post-war Western Europe and Japan, and the Soviet
Union had done in Eastern Europe. If so, it remains unclear in the East
8
Introduction
Asian context whether the United States, China or Japan (or a combina-
tion of these powers), or less likely, ASEAN, can conceivably play the role
of the hegemonic rule-maker.
Fifth, several contributors share the view that the key challenge for
East Asian security would be China and the ability of ASEAN and the
others to keep the Chinese committed to developing as a responsible
power.
Finally, it is interesting to note that none of the chapters, including
the realist-oriented ones, dismiss the possibility for institutional change
and community formation in East Asia. If anything, they allow that these
developments can occur in an evolutionary fashion, particularly with
the right conditions in place. Nonetheless, they insist that institutional
change in East Asia is unlikely without the commitment and participa-
tion of the great powers.
Institutional Congruence or Competition

There is agreement that no overarching structure or vision exists to
guide the regional enterprise in East Asia. Although some analysts see
the semblance of a functional differentiation of labour and purpose
among the institutions, no formal division exists. Rather, the noodle-bowl
quality of East Asian regionalism is seemingly driven by a penchant to
create new organizations with little thought for what they are for and
how they relate to one another. The creation of the East Asia Summit in
December 2005, for example, prompted bafflement even among some
proponents of East Asian institutionalism regarding the summit’s raison
d’être. As such, how best to move the region beyond the mere prolifera-
tion of institutional forms to substantive and meaningful cooperation
and community building would be the principal challenge for East Asian
states. As former ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong once put
it, the region has sufficient “talk shops”; the key, however, is to deepen
regional cooperation.
On the other hand, the chapters by Ryu and Lee argue that despite
the evident lack of strategic coherence in the regional architecture,
some institutions, such as the ARF and APEC, “complement each other
nicely”, given their near-identical memberships and the corresponding
9
focus of the ARF on security and that of APEC on economics. Further-

more, encouraging greater congruence and synergy between institutions
through linking them in some way—scheduling them back-to-back in
the same venue, for example—is an idea many observers increasingly
support. In the same vein, Ryu even proposes the creation of a common
secretariat for both organizations.
Third, the issue of leadership in East Asia and its contribution to
inter-institution congruence or rivalry is a key concern common to all
the chapters. Several authors acknowledge that ASEAN, by default,
remains the politically safest option to occupy the “driver’s seat” vis-à-
vis the region, even though the Association’s contribution has essentially
been to preserve the regional status quo and its hold over the regional
institutions that it helped establish. That said, the importance of great-
power cooperation (or, more accurately, its lack) to East Asia’s security is
glaringly obvious, most recently in the debate over the East Asia Summit
(EAS) and its relationship to the ASEAN Plus Three (APT). The key
points of that debate are worth rehearsing here.
China had initially assumed that the EAS would adopt contours and
composition commensurate with those of the APT. However, when it
became clear by the commencement of the inaugural EAS that Australia,
India and New Zealand would be included as members—presumably as
countervailing forces against perceived Chinese predominance—China
proposed a two-tiered summit: a core tier comprising the APT and
entrusted with the responsibility of building the East Asian Community
and an outer tier made up of the three “outsiders” and presumably non-
participants in regional community formation. In an official commentary
released in July 2006, Beijing affirmed its support for the APT as “the
main channel for building the East Asia Community, to be completed by
the East Asia Summit and other mechanisms”.5 China’s concern stemmed
from its belief that the APT is the right vehicle for realizing the collective
aspiration towards the East Asian Community, although of late the Chi-
nese have shown willingness to reconsider the EAS as an alternative.
South Korea, Myanmar, Malaysia and Thailand see the APT as the
appropriate vehicle for building the East Asian Community. At the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Hanoi in November 2006,
10
Introduction
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi insisted that the APT con-
stitutes the “primary vehicle” for community building in the region, while
the EAS could complement it as a useful forum for dialogue on strategic
issues involving additional participants in support of community building
in the region. He further urged that the integrity and distinctiveness of
the two respective processes be preserved.
On the other hand, Japan’s preference is that newcomers India,
Australia and New Zealand be more than mere passengers on the road
to the East Asian Community. Indonesia, Singapore and others share
Tokyo’s view of the EAS as a regional platform conducive for facilitat-
ing the formation of regional community. The choice to provide an
economic rationale for the EAS—a proposal that, while not necessarily
in competition with the idea of the APT as the appropriate vehicle for
regional economic integration, would likely have irritated the Chinese
makes good sense, given India’s rise as an economic player. At the
same time, the emergence of a new quadripartite strategic partnership
between Australia, India, Japan and the United States—of whom the
first three countries are EAS members—might have fuelled Chinese
suspicions regarding Japanese intentions behind their strong support
for the EAS.
As such, it is likely that no substantial progress by the EAS is possible
unless and until the leadership issue is resolved. As Shin-wha Lee notes
in her essay, “the settlement of this dispute over the summit’s leadership
will be a vital issue in the new balancing game within the East Asian
region building process”.
Fourth, the divergence in economic visions of China and Japan hint at
the predominance of geopolitical considerations. Not all the contributors
see this as a necessarily bad thing, in view of China’s status as a “late, late
developer” in the process of becoming a “normal” power, which involves
learning and respecting sovereignty norms and other diplomatic princi-
ples of the modern state system. In this regard, East Asia’s regional insti-
tutions play a key role as arenas facilitating the so-called “normalization”
of its members as sovereign states—much as ASEAN played a similar
role for post-colonial Southeast Asian countries. Confidence building
in Europe first started with the adoption of fundamental principles. As
11
such, Ryu and Tang Siew Mun both note that the construction of a stable
regional order in East Asia can begin “by establishing a code of conduct”
to guide regional multilateral security dialogue and cooperation efforts,
not least where Sino-Japanese ties are concerned.
A fifth point has to do with the current rapprochement effort
between Beijing and Tokyo, which several contributors see as crucial,
without which East Asian regionalism, in their opinion, would in all
likelihood fail. According to a recent commentary by Shiping Tang
and Haruko Satoh: “The future of the region depends on the rise of
China and the revitalization of Japan; one cannot happen without the
other. In other words, the future now depends on China and Japan
thinking together.”6 For instance, Franco-German post-war rapproche-
ment had been integral to the success of the European Community
(now Union), as had Argentine-Brazilian reconciliation been vital to
the success of the Common Market of the South (better known as
MERCOSUR). As several contributors in this study point out, a key
prerequisite of East Asian order and community is the need for great
powers to establish and maintain cooperative ties with one another.
For Ron Huisken, the well being of both the Sino-U.S. and Sino-Japa-
nese bilateral relationships is fundamental in this regard. On his part,
Tang Siew Mun argues for a concert of great powers—China, Japan
and the United States, certainly, and possibly including India—as the
basis on which the East Asian Community can be built.
Finally, the question of U.S. participation in East Asia’s regional insti-
tutions is also of concern. America’s absence in the EAS became an issue
with the inclusion of Australia, New Zealand and India—all of whom were
seen by China and others as U.S. proxies, unofficial or otherwise—in the
summit. Despite Washington’s politic endorsement of Beijing’s proac-
tive efforts in regionalism and multilateral diplomacy, some contribu-
tors do not discount the fact that the United States is clearly concerned
over whatever gains China may have made at its expense. Moreover,
given America’s membership in the ARF and its leadership of APEC,
it is inconceivable that any attempt to make these two institutions—or,
arguably, the other East Asian institutions—more complementary must
necessarily involve U.S. input.
12
Introduction
Issue-Specificity
The contributors are agreed that for East Asia’s regional institutions to
be effective, they need to address specific issues and problems. Shiping
Tang and Shin-wha Lee, for example, argue that East Asian institutions
ought to adopt problem-oriented and problem-solving approaches
to regional cooperation. While Yongwook Ryu readily concedes that
regional “talk shops” have served and would continue to serve a useful
purpose, he, much like his fellow contributors, share the view that East
Asian institutions need to balance talk with substantive cooperation. For
example, although the ASEAN Way of consensus and consultation has
been useful to the region, the contributors nonetheless assent that move-
ment towards a rules-based regionalism—as exemplified by the ASEAN
Charter—is a welcome development, despite reservations regarding the
watered-down quality of the charter when it was officially unveiled in
November 2007.
In a sense, there is inter-governmental support for the view that East
Asian regionalism should be problem oriented. For some ASEAN lead-
ers, the experience of early post-war European integration offers useful
lessons for ASEAN’s efforts to establish the ASEAN Free Trade Area
(AFTA)—and, by extension, the ASEAN Economic Community—by
2015. While the European experience may have involved myriad aspects
of functional or technical cooperation among Western European econo-
mies in niche areas, it is precisely these prosaic yet necessary collabora-
tions that have provided Europe a basis for further cooperation in non-
economic areas.
Another utility of functional cooperation has to do with the estab-
lishment and enforcement of rules. For Shiping Tang, the pursuit of
issue-specific cooperation can conceivably lead to another promising
development: the creation of issue-driven rules that are binding. He notes
that despite criticism against ASEAN for its longstanding reluctance
to arm its provisions with enforceable rules, the Chiang Mai Initiative,
established in response to the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, is an early
indication that East Asian states are not opposed to moving in a rules-
based direction so long as regional conditions merit it.
13
Clearly, the task of developing East Asian regionalism along issue-

specific lines is not without challenges. At present, no formal division
of labour exists among East Asian institutions. To be sure, the ARF has
long been seen as the appropriate forum for regional security, whereas
the APEC and the APT are seen as fora for regional economic affairs.
However, as the Sino-Japanese debate over the rationale for the EAS has
shown, concurrence over the need for issue-specific institutions does
not mean that East Asian countries necessarily agree over which par-
ticular institution should handle which particular issue. Nonetheless, the
inclusion of countries like Australia and India in the EAS membership
for economic, political and strategic reasons suggests that East Asian
regionalism, despite the heated debate over membership and geography,
has not restricted itself to a geographical definition.
Theoretical and Analytical Considerations

The academic literature on international institutions comprises contrac-
tual, sociological and realpolitik perspectives.
• Contractual (or neo-liberal) institutionalism emphasizes
responses by the institution’s members to incentives and disin-
centives provided externally by the institution (e.g. rules, mem-
bership requirements) or by certain principal actors within the
institution. Contractually-based institutions arguably contribute
to international security and stability through: (i) facilitating
reciprocity among their member countries; (ii) providing them
information to facilitate their decision making; (iii) reducing
transaction costs that would have otherwise blighted those not
institutionally linked; (iv) making their commitments more cred-
ible; and (v) establishing policy coordination among member
states.7
• Sociological (or constructivist) institutionalism emphasizes
socialization processes and the formation of habits of coopera-
tion. By ostensibly embodying a non-realpolitik ideology, it is
argued that institutions relatively low in level of institutionaliza-
tion may nonetheless do reasonably well in cooperation despite
14
Introduction
being mere “talk shops”. Such socially-based institutions conceiv-

ably contribute to security through an institutional structure
conducive to persuasion that facilitates the development of
habits of cooperation among members in the absence of exter-
nal motivations. Regional-security dialogue processes hence
take on significance as platforms through which cooperation
enhancing—or, at the very least, status-quo promoting—norms
and conventions can be generated and diffused. Its features likely
include: (i) a relatively small membership with some consistency
over time in the participants to the institution; (ii) a decision-
making process that is consensus-based; and (iii) an institutional
mandate that emphasizes information-sharing, consultation and
deliberation rather than negotiation and legislation.8
• Against the above perspectives stands the reapolitik (or realist)
view on international institutions. Expressly less optimistic than
the foregoing, realpolitik readings of institutions make the fol-
lowing points: (i) states do cooperate in an anarchic world, but
cooperation is more often than not inhibited by considerations
of relative gains and concerns over free-riding and cheating;
(ii) the influence of institutions on state behaviour is minimal
as institutions are created and shaped by the most powerful
states for maintaining or increasing their power; (iii) contractual
institutionalism has limited explanatory utility vis-à-vis the secu-
rity realm since it ignores relative gains; and (iv) the empirical
record of international institutions argues against the claims of
contractual and sociological institutionalisms.9
Against the aforementioned perspectives, the following observations
can be drawn from this study.
First, the consensus among the contributors is that no single ana-
lytical perspective adequately explains the complex character of the
contemporary East Asian region.10 In view of the ongoing institutional
creep in East Asia and the rise of a loosely defined normative framework,
the contributors see East Asia as a region in transition towards a more
complex architecture that, in the foreseeable future, would likely include
15
more contractually and sociologically oriented features. As the chapter

by Christopher Roberts notes, it is unfair to force an either/or option
on whether this or that analytical perspective best explains East Asian
regionalism because each theoretical variant of institutionalism, whether
contractual, sociological or realpolitik, highlights particular features of
regionalism at particular phases of the region’s institutional develop-
ment. On the other hand, it is also fair to say, as others have done, that
features particular to all three analytical perspectives are discernable in
the complex milieu of East Asian regionalism today.11 It is in this vein that
Roberts advocates the use of analytical eclectic approaches to the study
of East Asian institutionalism. Nonetheless, the predominance of sov-
ereignty norms in East Asia today should not preclude the appreciation
that their emergence was a development of recent vintage (i.e. post-war
and post-colonial).
Second, it is noteworthy that not all the contributors are entirely
comfortable with terms like “East Asia” and “regionalism”, since these are
in themselves contested. No regional institution has the same member-
ship as another, which complicates any attempt at a geographical refer-
ence, not least that of East Asia. Moreover, if the concept of regionalism
refers to a pan-regional enmeshment, if not integration, then insofar as
the extant institutionalism of East Asia—with its proliferation of institu-
tional forms without a commensurate strategic coherence and substantive
cooperation—is concerned, then it might make sense to avoid treating
“regionalism” and “institutionalism” as interchangeable concepts when
defining and describing East Asia.
Third, the challenges and prospects for institutional change is a
concern alluded to in most if not all the chapters, but especially in
Shiping Tang’s, who raises the need for analysis to be guided by a
viable theory of institutional change. In this respect, Tang suggests
that a conceptual distinction needs to be made between institution
and organization, where “institution” refers to rules and principles,
and “organization” refers to the collection of actors or members that
constitute the organization. To be sure, all organizations require a
modicum of rules and conventions in order to exist and function. Thus
understood, East Asian institutions are therefore regional organiza-
16
Introduction
tions presently engaged in the process of institutionalization, i.e.

becoming institutions.
Finally, the argument that East Asian institutions should pursue a
problem-oriented agenda and focus on functional cooperation raises
the question of whether past theories of regional integration, such
as neo-functionalism, popularized by Ernst B. Haas, are of use in
analysing East Asian institutionalism. This has also been prompted
by recent comments by regional leaders regarding the importance
of learning from Europe’s integration experience. It bears reminding
that Haas himself rejected the utility of his own theoretical model
for the study of European integration on the basis that the rise of the
European Union had as much to do with external causes—notably,
concern in the 1990s over the apparent regionalization of world
trade—as internal.12 That East Asia’s institutions also arose partially,
if not largely, due to external considerations—the formation of the
North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), the rise of China and
India, among others—therefore suggests that discrepancies between
East Asia and Europe could be less than previously assumed.
Conclusion
That East Asia today is not quite the “cockpit of great power rivalry”, as
some had predicted, can be attributed in part to the regional institu-
tions that dot its diplomatic landscape. These institutions are not only
mechanisms of confidence building and reassurance for established
powers, emerging powers as well as aspiring powers within East Asia
or who have significant interests in the region. They also provide the
region’s smaller and weaker residents with a substantial say in the affairs
and direction of the region, chiefly through ASEAN. While they can
undoubtedly contribute to the realization of regional aspirations for an
East Asia Community, innumerable challenges and problems still stand
in the way towards such a goal, as highlighted in this study. But as this
volume’s contributors have shown, there is no shortage of possibilities
by which the East Asian region, with the appropriate vision and requisite
capacity and will, can build a community from its disparate parts.
17
Notes
1. See, G. John Ikenberry and J. Tsuchiyama, “Between Balance of Power and
Community: The Future of Multilateral Security Co-operation in the Asia-
Pacific”, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific Vol. 2 No. 1 (2002), pp.
69–94; Muthiah Alagappa (Ed.), Asian Security Order: Instrumental and
Normative Features (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).
2. The idea behind the Sentosa Roundtable on Asian Security was originally
conceived by Professor Amitav Acharya, Director of the Centre for
Governance and International Affairs at the University of Bristol, during
his stint at RSIS.
3. This argument is made by Andrew Hurrell, “Regionalism in Theoretical
Perspective”, in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell (Eds.), Regionalism
in World Politics: Regional Organisation and Regional Order (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 37–73.
4. These three orientations correspond respectively with the constructivist,
neo-liberal and realist perspectives in international relations theory.
5. Cited in Frank Frost and Ann Rann, “The East Asia Summit, Cebu, 2007:
Issues and Prospects”, E-Brief, 1 December 2006 (updated 20 December
2006). Canberra: Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia. Available
at www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/FAD/eastasia_summit2007.htm.
6. Shiping Tang and Haruko Satoh, “Can China and Japan Think Together?”
PACNET 52, 29 December 2007.
7. From Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin, “The Promise of Institutionalist
Theory”, International Security Vol. 20 No. 1 (Summer 1995), pp. 39–51.
8. From Alastair Iain Johnston, “Socialisation in International Institutions:
The ASEAN Way and International Relations Theory”, in G. John
Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno (Eds.), International Relations
Theory and the Asia-Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press,
2003), pp. 107–162.
9. From John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions”,
International Security Vol. 19 No. 3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 5–49.
10. This is the conclusion of the sweeping anthology authored by leading
scholars in Muthiah Alagappa (Ed.), Asian Security Order: Instrumental
and Normative Features (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).
11. See, Alagappa, Asian Security Order, and See Seng Tan and Amitav
Acharya (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation: National Interests and
Regional Order (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2004).
12. Haas’ neo-functionalist theory of regional integration relies principally
on internal or “endogenous” factors.
18
1
East Asian Regionalism
A Backgrounder on an Eclectic
Alternative for Analysis
Christopher B. Roberts
I
n analysing the importance of the various regional institutions in East
Asia, the usual approach is to view the empirical evidence through
the lens of one of the major schools of thought in International
Relations (IR) theory. While each of these approaches have delivered
many valuable insights about the nature of Asia’s security architecture,
the continuation of a paradigmatic divide has also diverted important
intellectual effort away from the many comprehensive security chal-
lenges confronting Asia. In response, this chapter argues that such a
divide is unnecessary (even counter-productive) as the reality is that all
the major paradigms add to the conceptual toolkit and provide valuable
insight. Consequently, this study suggests a spectrum of integration that
provides a possible role for much of the behaviour predicted by all three
of the major IR paradigms—realism, liberalism and constructivism. The
chapter also seeks to provide a fresh interpretation of both the actual
and potential role of Asia’s institutions. In considering the geographic
areas of South Asia, Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, it is suggested
that the collection of states in Southeast Asia (with a few exceptions)
represents the most stable and cooperative set of inter-state relations.
While the dynamics of the region do not yet come close to satisfying IR
concepts such that of a “security community”, several of the Southeast
Asian states do appear to have at least benefited through 40 years of
dialogue and limited cooperation under the multilateral institution of
ASEAN. Finally, while the balance of inter-state behaviour in Greater
19
Asia continues to fit within realist predictions, the history of Southeast

Asia suggests that regional institutions can eventually reduce tensions
and mistrust, thereby facilitating a limited shift from competitive to
cooperative security and relations.
Eclecticism and the Concept of Comprehensive

Integration
For nearly a decade, scholars such as Emmanuel Adler and Michael
Barnett have been calling for a pragmatic middle ground between the
viewpoints of the various schools of thought in international relations
theory.1 Increasingly, a combination of empirical evidence and consid-
erations of practicality have compelled other scholars to join this call. In
so doing, some scholars, such as Richard Lebow, have attempted to look
beyond the illusion of incompatibility that lurks at the surface of major
IR paradigms and have contended that all three paradigms are relevant
because no single paradigm is able to fully capture the international
system.2 Such a contention may seem logical enough but in reflecting
on the methodological dilemmas raised by this approach, an eminent
professor once suggested that “eclecticism is a bit like a surgeon starting
an operation without knowing which organ he is going to remove”. While
this observation maintains a degree of validity, the problem is an underly-
ing assumption against the potential for an alternative framework that
might provide a basic order of procedure with different sets of insights
and conclusions arising from different sets of empirical circumstances.
In other words, if it were possible to connect general exposés of interna-
tional behaviour with some kind of situational pattern, then it may also
become possible to hypothesize when an international actor may exhibit
the attributes of one school of thought as opposed to another.
For the purpose of understanding why different sets of states may
exhibit different sets of behaviour, Muthiah Alagappa has already made
a considerable contribution by suggesting a concept of order that, “span-
ning a spectrum, … ranges from total disorder that is associated with the
law of the jungle to the rule of law associated with a cohesive political
community in which most people obey the law”.3 However, and in the
20
1 East Asian Regionalism
A Backgrounder on an Eclectic Alternative for Analysis
context of attempting to understand the importance of Asia’s institutions,

the problem with Alagappa’s concept of order is that it is more descriptive
than predictive and/or prescriptive in nature. In order to overcome this
dilemma, this chapter argues that the concept of integration—or, more
accurately, the processes of integration—may provide a viable alternative
to explain the types of behaviour international actors are likely to exhibit
at a given point in time. For the purpose of this explanation, a previous
publication by the author introduced the notion of comprehensive inte-
gration to not only draw out the structure and form of integration but
also to hypothesize the order by which the processes of integration are
likely to take place.
In line with the philosophical basis for the ASEAN security com-
munity proposal, Figure 1.1 illustrates the concept of comprehensive
integration comprising three major foundations: economic, political and
socio-cultural integration. One consequence of sufficiently high integra-
tion between the international actors (e.g. the Asian states) would be the
emergence of relations and circumstances akin to those predicted by the
notion of a security community. The dotted portions of the timelines
Figure 1.1
The pillars underlying comprehensive integration
Theoretically integrated
Non-integration Security community
Economic integration
Political and security integration
Socio-cultural integration
Low Medium-low Medium-high High integration
integration
Timeline
Past Future
21
that lie beyond the “security community” indicator are not linked to any
particular timescale and represent the grey area that exists between the
level of integration necessary to constitute a security community (assum-
ing that would be a desirable end goal) and the theoretical abstraction of
being integrated. The notion that Asian states can be “integrated” is con-
sidered a theoretical abstraction because, in reality, there can be no end
to how much individuals, communities and states can be integrated into
some kind of supranational entity. Further, it is not possible to become
fully integrated where there is no discernable distinction between both
the institutions and identities of the individual units of analysis or the
identity and institutions of the security community itself. In other words,
the processes of comprehensive integration are considered continuous
and never entirely complete.
In building on insights from other theories and frameworks (such as
nation-building), Figure 1.2 develops an integrated sketch of the likely
Figure 1.2
The processes behind comprehensive integration
Non-integration Security community
Economic integration and elite Level identtity for

State process
Political and security integration Top

2 down
Socio-cultural integration
3
Low integration Medium-low Medium-high High integration
Past Future
Timeline
Past Future
Low integration Medium-low Medium-high High integration

Communal process
3
Political and security integration
2 Bottom
Economic integration up
1
Socio-cultural and elite-level integration
Non-integration Theoretically integrated
22
pathways by which a group of states may evolve from low integration

to relatively high integration. In this context, and as a consequence of
either state-driven initiatives (top-down) or communal driven processes
(bottom-up), a collection of states can shift forward along the spectrum
of integration depicted by the figure. While each of these push-pull inte-
grative processes can alternatively influence the other and coexist at the
same time, it is contended that between any collection of states within the
international system one set of processes is likely to be more dominant
than the other. Further, and regardless of which process (whether state or
communally driven) is dominant, the secondary group of processes can
either assist or detract from the primary group. In both Northeast and
Southeast Asia, for example, and regardless of whether all the political
elite of all the East Asian states wholeheartedly commit to “community
building” in the future, the secondary “communal-driven” process may in
fact act to inhibit the pace of integration due to the challenge of history
and the rivalry and tension that may continue to be associated with it.
In returning to the discussion at the beginning of this section,
Figure 1.3 illustrates the “possibility” that at a low level of integration
the types of behaviour predicted by the realist paradigm (the logic of
Figure 1.3
The impact of integration on inter-state behaviour
Security community
State- State-driven comprehensive integration
driven
processes Low integration Medium-low Medium-high High integration Future
Realist Realist Liberalist

Behaviour and liberalist Constructivist
and Behaviour dominant
dominant Behaviour evident constructivist Cooperative behaviour
Past Competitive behaviour Behaviour evident Low-security dilemma
High security dilemma
Past High risk of violence Stable peace with little to
and/or armed no risk of violence
conflict
Communal- Low integration Medium-low Medium-high High integration Future

driven
processes Communal-driven comprehensive integration
23
consequences) is more likely to be dominant whereas at a high level

of integration states alternatively seek intra-mural cooperation with a
view to attaining absolute gain (as opposed to relative gain) where the
logic of appropriateness dominates. As states move along the spectrum
of comprehensive integration then the various patterns of behaviour as
predicted through the neo-liberalist paradigm starts to emerge whereby
the security dilemma is reduced through economic interdependence and
cooperative security arrangements. As both the frequency of cooperation
and the level of interdependence rise, the more state actors are likely to
be socialized, ceteris paribus, into a collective identity and the forms of
behaviour likely to fit within the worldview of the constructivists become
more prevalent. Eventually, at an adequately high level of integration, the
security dilemma is all but mitigated and an integrative peace, followed by
a stable peace, emerges amidst the community of states. A brief overview
of where Asia might sit within this spectrum of integration, together with
the actual and potential impact of Asia’s institutions, forms the subject
of analysis in the next section.
Greater Asia: Regional Dynamics and

Institutional Influences
Depending on one’s perspective, Asia’s international institutions poten-
tially include a number of regions, sub-regions, sub-systems, and/or
security complexes. For the purpose of simplicity, the analysis has been
limited to the states within Southeast Asia (e.g. the ASEAN states),
South Asia (e.g. the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation,
or SAARC, states) and Northeast Asia (e.g. Japan, China, North Korea,
South Korea and, arguably, Taiwan). Again, for simplicity, these three
geographic areas will be referred to as “regions”. In regard to these three
regions, the starting proposition shall be that although they share many
commonalities in terms of their histories, patterns of migration and
language, the three regions simultaneously behold equally significant dif-
ferences in their histories, strategic alignments and security architecture.
Moreover, and within each region, one can also find significant differences
in political systems, political ideologies, religion, ethnicity, language and,
24
again, political alignments. While all three of regions remain relatively

un-integrated, as will be seen, there also remain considerable differences
in the international relations of each region.
In the case of South Asia, the region was strongly polarized during
the Cold War, with India being a major arms importer of the Soviet
Union while Pakistan maintained close relations with China and, later,
the United States. The security dilemma associated with the South Asian
power balancing has resulted in the development of nuclear weapons
by both India and Pakistan. Antipathy and mistrust between India and
Pakistan have also been recently aggravated by a growing alliance between
India and the United States. This alliance resulted in a ten-year defence
agreement between the two countries in June 2005. Nonetheless, South
Asia’s label as one of the most violent regions on earth is primarily due to
domestic drivers associated with religion and ethnicity rather than armed
conflict between states. In Northeast Asia, by contrast, the primary threat
to peace and stability can be located in the nature of inter-governmental
relations. Such relations have all been hampered by historical antagonisms
including World War II and strongly bipolarized security environments
during the Cold War, the results of which include a divided Korea and
an isolated Taipei. Nonetheless, a significant basis for the emergence
of new challenges in this region has been the pace of economic growth
in China. This has, in turn, aided the country’s military modernization
programme and shifted the balance of power away from the U.S. allies
of Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Unlike South Asia or Southeast Asia,
the volatility in the region’s relations has meant that Northeast Asia has
thus far been unable to establish an indigenous supranational grouping
such as ASEAN or SAARC.
In regard to Southeast Asia, some scholars consider the region to
be a “cultural shatter belt” that is not only diverse and fragmented but
also balkanized. Indeed, during the early decades of independence, some
limited conflict did occur (e.g. Confrontation) and the region was also
extremely polarized between a largely Western-oriented and capitalist
South and a Communist North (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). How-
ever, in recent decades, relatively less power balancing has been evident
between the ASEAN states. As a partial consequence of this, together
25
with the possible affect of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

on regional relations, there has also been relatively less involvement by
major exogenous powers in the realm of traditional security issues. This is
not to suggest that exogenous powers such as the United States have not
played a role in the region but that such a role has been relatively low key
and certainly less controversial amongst the ASEAN member-states. To
the extent that some ASEAN members have sought military moderniza-
tion programmes or the maintenance of power, such as Singapore and
Vietnam, they have been largely motivated by considerations other than
great-power alliances or rivalry.
While each of the regions have suffered from significant volatility at
various times, whether domestic or trans-national in origin, it is impor-
tant to note that in Southeast Asia, full-scale armed conflict has never
occurred between the ASEAN members. Moreover, ASEAN’s proposal
to become a security community and negotiations for an ASEAN charter
reflect an intention to integrate both politically and economically. None-
theless, to date multilateral integration and cooperation between the
ASEAN states has been relatively more successful within the economic
realm. Examples of economic cooperation include the ASEAN Free Trade
Area, the ASEAN Investment Area and the ASEAN Surveillance Proc-
ess. ASEAN has also facilitated the development of other extra-regional
institutions such as the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Plus Three
(APT) Framework. While the East Asia Summit has thus far been lim-
ited to a few short hours of meetings, progress within the APT format
has been more substantive. The Chiang Mai Initiative is one example to
stem from the APT forum and it has involved 16 bilateral currency-swap
arrangements worth over US$80 billion. South Asia’s SAARC, by contrast,
was only established in 1985 and is consequently far more embryonic in
format. The members have also demonstrated relatively little genuine
political will to pursue integration. An example of the difficultly of achiev-
ing cooperation in South Asia has been demonstrated through the many
“longwinded” and unimplemented provisions in SAARC’s own version of
AFTA, the South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA).
While formal multilateral security cooperation in each of the three
regions has been difficult to achieve, bilateral and trilateral security coop-
26
eration is increasingly common in Southeast Asia. A notable example of

such cooperation has been the “Eyes in the Sky” surveillance programme
between Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia to combat piracy in the
Malacca Straits. In all three regions a significant range of confidence- and
security-building measures has been implemented but again the ASEAN
states have been the most proactive in this area. Interestingly, one of the
few successful examples of preventative diplomacy recently occurred
through the Six Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear weapons crisis
but this is also notable for the involvement of major powers, including
the United States. Unlike South Asia and Northeast Asia, the ASEAN
states have made a number of attempts to formally establish regional
mechanisms for preventative diplomacy but the final products of these
negotiations, namely the ASEAN Troika and the High Council, remain
weak, under-institutionalized and handicapped by a consensus-based
decision-making process.
Perceptions regarding neighbouring states (and people) can poten-
tially represent another issue to which ASEAN’s longevity as an institution
may have had some impact. For example, two surveys have recently exam-
ined the various sets of perceptions regarding neighbouring communities
in both Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. In the case of Southeast Asia,
the author conducted a survey that questioned people on the street on
their perceptions of trust. In response to the question, “Do you believe
you can trust all the Southeast Asian countries to be good neighbours?”,
38 per cent of the respondents indicated “yes” while 36 per cent indicated
they were “unsure” and 26.4 per cent answered “no”.4 While these figures
may be problematic as far as ASEAN’s own security community proposal
is concerned, the level of trust in Southeast Asia is likely to be far higher
than that of the turbulent period surrounding ASEAN’s inception. In
the case of Northeast Asia, a 2006 Pew Survey found that 71 per cent of
Chinese sample maintained a negative view of Japan while 70 per cent
of Japanese sample maintained a negative view of China. While the two
surveys are statistically incomparable, the general impression of negativity
in Northeast Asia, when compared to the relative ambivalence displayed
in Southeast Asia, seems to at least warrant further empirical research
on the issue.
27
While several of the Southeast Asian states may have moved towards
the middle of a spectrum of integration, the balance of behaviour in all
three regions still tends to reflect the characteristics predicted by the real-
ist paradigm. Thus, and even in the case of Southeast Asia, “community”
type behaviour—as would be manifested through displays of affinity,
kinship and reciprocity—has been primarily limited to interactions that
do not conflict with the national interests of each member-state. Where
the national interests of the ASEAN members are not complementary,
their foreign policies continue to be formulated on the basis of relative
gain and thereby contrary to the collective interests of the region. One
example of such behaviour is the pursuit of bilateral FTAs, the nature
of which, according to Christopher Dent, has been “more likely to bring
division rather than inclusion to regional community building endeavours
in Southeast Asia over the long run”.5 Further, the overlapping “noodle
bowl” of bilateral FTAs will likely disadvantage the poorer members
by facilitating trade diversion along with a reduction to the efficiency
of trade through increased administrative costs and the absorption of
additional resources. A snapshot of the limitations to any regional sense
of community, as potentially generated by the existence of ASEAN, was
articulated by former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin in respect to his
negotiations for a Thai-U.S. FTA. In a 2006 address he stated that “we
will be at a huge disadvantage to others if we lose our access to the U.S.
market, as countries will pursue their own deals. We need to move now,
before we have no more room to move”.
Conclusion
At the conceptual level of analysis, while the spectrum of comprehensive
integration in this chapter accepts the possibility of behaviour akin to
that predicted by all three of the major IR paradigms, this framework
rejects the realist notion that international identities and international
practices cannot be changed. In this sense, realism is considered to play
a subordinate role to the fundamental process of socialization, as con-
ceptualized within the constructivist literature. Thus, over time, positive
instances of interaction between political elites, even when limited to
28
the type of cooperation predicted by realpolitik institutionalism, may

socialize into existence a greater sense of trust, habits of cooperation and
the development of a collective identity. As a given collection of states
becomes more integrated, they may also consciously seek to accelerate
the pace of integration and deepen the habits of cooperation through
greater institutionalization. As indicated, the beginnings of such a pos-
sibility have already started to appear between the ASEAN states through
the proposal for a security community and subsequent negotiations
over an ASEAN charter. Nevertheless, the processes of integration and
institutionalism (whether sociological or contractual in nature) will likely
take several decades before the logic of appropriateness and considera-
tions of absolute gain become the dominant basis for decision making
throughout Asia.
At the more empirical level of analysis, much of the second section
has focused on the impact of ASEAN to cooperation and integration in
Southeast Asia. This is because ASEAN is one of the oldest and most
entrenched international institutions in Asia. The level of stability and
cooperation that has emerged in conjunction with the development of
ASEAN (as nascent as it may be) is instructive of the potential role that
broader international institutions—such as the APT and the East Asia
Summit—can play in Greater Asia in the future. The need to facilitate
greater trust, confidence, interaction and cooperation has been rendered
all the more important given the broad range of traditional security con-
cerns present in both Northeast Asia and South Asia. In this context, the
more inclusive nature of the East Asia Summit can play an important
role in extending norms of peaceful coexistence and cooperation into
South Asia. Nonetheless, and given that virtually all of Asia’s international
institutions operate on the basis of consensus, the APT format is also
important in that its smaller membership may facilitate easier agreement
on initiatives for cooperation and integration. The challenge here will be
how to develop each of these international institutions without detract-
ing from the other. Finally, the brevity of this study has not only limited
which international institutions could be considered but has also meant
that many other issues relevant to the analysis were not deliberated.
29
Notes
1. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (Eds.), Security Communities
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
2. Richard Ned Lebow, “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the
Failure of Realism”, in Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen
(Eds.), International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 23–56.
3. Muthiah Alagappa, “The Study of International Order: An Analytical
Framework”, in Muthiah Alagappa (Ed.), Asian Security Order:
Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2003), p. 39.
4. See, Christopher Roberts’ Ph.D. dissertation, UNSW@ADFA 2007.
5. Christopher M. Dent, “The New Economic Bilateralism in Southeast
Asia: Region-Convergent or Region-Divergent?” International Relations
of the Asia-Pacific Vol. 6 No. 1 (2006), pp. 81–111.
30
2
The Primacy of Westphalian
Logics in East Asian Regionalism
Yongwook Ryu
T
his chapter argues the continued primacy of the state sovereignty
and non-interference norms in East Asia. For the purpose of this
discussion, I will assume that there are clearly identifiable regions
in the world. Thus Southeast Asia is a region, and basically notes the
10 ASEAN countries. Northeast Asia is also a region with Japan, South
Korea, North Korea, PRC and Taiwan as its members. The term “East
Asia” means the combination of Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia.
East Asian Regional Institutions

East Asia is home to a plethora of international institutions. In this
section, however, I will limit myself to the discussion of the following
security organizations: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) and the Six Party Talks (SPT) in Northeast Asia. I
will briefly describe these security organizations and then discuss their
characteristics.
Leading the group of East Asian regional organizations is ASEAN.
The association was created in 1967 and developed through a series of
regional crises: Confrontation refers to a specific historical crisis) between
Malaysia and Indonesia, the Cambodia conflict of the 1980s, the Asian
Financial Crisis of 1997 and potentially the current Myanmar situation. Its
biggest success has been in two areas: economics and diplomacy. ASEAN
31
has not only deepened economic integration among its members but it
has also successfully created a diplomatic community among the elite. By
acquiring the dialogue partner status in the United Nations, ASEAN has
also gained a much-deserved international recognition as a meaningful
regional organization.
Stemming from but not reducible to ASEAN is the ARF. The ARF was
created in 1994 in the hope that East Asia would follow the footstep of
Europe in the post-Cold War era by creating a multilateral forum leading
to cooperation in security issues. The ARF is unique in that its member-
ship is inclusive—involving all the great powers in the region—and it
constitutes the only forum in the region where national representatives
freely discuss security issues. The issues discussed cover not only major
regional security threats but also non-traditional issues and internal
matters of member states. Operating on the ASEAN Way, its weakness is
that whatever is decided is non-binding, and consensual approach often
means rather slow progress.
The 1995 Concept Paper of the ARF envisions development in three
stages, beginning from confidence-building measures (CBMs), moving
to preventive diplomacy, and finally reaching the stage of “approaches
to conflict resolution”. The first stage will remain important throughout
the process, and has occupied much work thus far in the ARF. However,
the ARF is on its way towards the stage of a weak form of preventive
diplomacy. Joint exercises in maritime security (since 2006) and disaster
relief (from 2008) suggest that the participant countries have made some
progress in confidence building and preventive diplomacy, albeit slower
than some people’s liking.
In Northeast Asia and Central Asia, there are a couple of important
regional security organizations or fora. The first is the Six Party Talks
(SPT), the successor to the Korean Energy Development Organization
(KEDO). The SPT was initiated with the specific purpose of resolving
the North Korean nuclear issue. Started in 2002, there have been six
rounds of talks to date, the most successful in the form of the September
2005 and February 2007 Joint Statements. The September 2005 state-
ment outlines the participants’ commitment to the denuclearization of
the Korean peninsula, while the February 2007 statement contains a
32
2 The Primacy of Westphalian Logics in East Asian Regionalism
realistic hope of dismantling North Korea’s nuclear facilities . While the

SPT is different from the other regional organizations in that it does not
have a secretariat or a founding declaration, and only meets on an ad
hoc basis, it is important as it includes all the great powers. Indeed, the
unforeseen benefit of the North Korean nuclear issue has been that the
issue has brought the great powers, otherwise divided by their divergent
preferences, together and made them cooperate over a substantial period
on a major regional security threat. The February statement contains a
seed for the talks to become a multilateral regional security forum or
organization. The outlining of the five working groups, including the East
Asian peace mechanism, all deal with key security issues in Northeast
Asia and, so long as the parties are committed to regular meetings and
discussions, the talks might end up as a much-needed Northeast Asian
regional security forum or organization. In Central Asia, the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) was created in 2001 amidst growing
fear of U.S. expansion into the region, among the regional powers. Its
original aim was to facilitate cooperation through CBMs and information
exchange, but has expanded over the years into economic and energy
cooperation. Once again, the SCO resembles other East Asian regional
institutions in that it adheres strictly to the sovereignty norms.
These regional security organizations are characterized by the fol-
lowing features. First, these institutions reflect the strong normative bias
towards state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. Although
ASEAN has moved somewhat away from whole-heartedly embracing
the sovereignty norms, as the current Myanmar case demonstrates, it is
still essentially an organization with an overwhelming emphasis on state
sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. The ARF is similar
in this regard. While its member states exchange their views concern-
ing certain domestic issues of member states rather freely, the ARF has
vehemently protected the sovereignty norms. The SCO and the SPT are
probably the strongest in protecting the sovereignty norms. The strength
of these “sovereignty norms” reflects the colonial experience from which
the modern nations of the regional countries emerged. Certainly humani-
tarian intervention seems beyond imagination among regional countries,
but even criticism of domestic affairs of member states is often greeted
33
with resistance and caution from some countries.

Second, stemming from the first point, because of a strong emphasis
on state sovereignty, the institutions do not have a strong independ-
ent voice. Even the most vibrant regional organization, ASEAN, puts
significant limitation on the power of its secretariat. For instance, if the
general-secretary of ASEAN wants to introduce new agenda or policy
initiatives to ASEAN meetings, he first needs to consult and get approval
from the Standing Committee, which is made of representatives from the
ten member countries. This is so because the member states fear that
the secretariat may end up becoming a beast with its own life. Thus the
regional security organizations tend to be weakly institutionalized, their
decisions non-binding, their approach to security issues consensual and
slow, and hence concrete actions shallow and slow in coming.
Third, the most vociferous voice for multilateral security dialogue
and cooperation in the region has come from small and medium powers.
This includes ASEAN countries and South Korea. While we all realize
that any kind of security cooperation would be meaningless without the
corresponding involvement of great powers, contrary to the European
experience, East Asian regionalism is not a great-power initiative. Indeed,
this point may well be unique to East Asia. In Europe, Africa and the
Americas, it was mainly the big regional powers that started the proc-
ess. Given the mutual suspicion and divergent interests of regional great
powers, it would certainly have been very difficult for them to initiate and
successfully start a regional organization. But at the same time, because
small and medium powers are in the driving seat of regional multilater-
alism, one always has the worry that once they pull out, it would lead to
the collapse of regional organizations.
Regional Security Organizations, Regional

Order and Community Building
While it is true that none of the regional organizations discussed here
has been able to resolve a major security issue such as Taiwan, the Spratly
Islands dispute, the North Korean nuclear issue and so forth, one should
not discount the value of having regular meetings that provide opportuni-
34
ties for dialogue and exchange of information. Regardless of their effec-

tiveness, at the bare minimum, these organizations are communicative
arenas in which participants exchange their different views on security
issues, learn to understand the dominant international norms, attempt
to persuade one another through principled argumentation and alter
each other’s behaviour.
Here, I believe that ASEAN and the ARF have done very well. ASEAN
and the ARF can be viewed essentially as norm-building organizations.
The norms they have promoted are sovereignty norms, to be sure, but
doing so has reduced uncertainty about the region enormously, as well as
increased behavioural predictability and regional stability by introducing
the basic code of conduct in inter-state relations in the region. Given that
domestic instability was a major issue facing Southeast Asian nations in
the post-colonial period, the sovereignty norms ensured their peaceful
coexistence in a rather successful manner.
Second, the organizations have improved the level of trust among the
regional countries through CBMs. Less than a decade ago, some countries
were hesitant about participating in an international organization for
fear of being exploited by the organization, or being pushed to a corner
to make concessions by other smaller member countries. Today, even
a reclusive regime like North Korea sees the benefit in participating in
multilateral dialogues (i.e. the SPT). China has been an interesting case
in that it has come a long way from doing things on a bilateral basis to
being one of the big proponents of multilateral dialogues. Its hosting of
the SPT, as well as its extensive participation in the ARF, suggests that
the Chinese leadership also sees much benefit to be derived from par-
ticipating in multilateral dialogues.
Third, as far as ASEAN is concerned, the organization has also
produced a diplomatic community. The regular interactions at top gov-
ernmental levels have inculcated a habit of consultation, dialogue and
cooperation among its member countries. So when faced with a regional
security problem, no one country thinks of taking unilateral action with-
out consulting the other member states of ASEAN.
Thus I argue that regional organizations have contributed a great
deal to establishing and maintaining a regional order in a Westphalian
35
fashion. But we know that the world is moving away from the Westphalian
phase, and that is why we often see struggles between those that want to
do things the old way and others that want to see a more fundamental
change in the way things are done. However, on the question of com-
munity creation, I think that none of the organizations has really created
a sense of community among their members. ASEAN may be an excep-
tion—though there I think that it has created some sense of community
at the elite level, both diplomatic community and economic community.
ASEAN sees some problems with its remaining as an elitist organization
and hence tries to reach out to the grassroots level through social and
cultural activities. This project has begun quite recently and remains to
be seen how successful it will be in inculcating the same kind of “we”
feeling among the ordinary peoples of Southeast Asia.
Beyond ASEAN, none of the other organizations has created any
sense of community. To be more exact, none of the other organizations
has ever envisioned such a thing to begin with. A more troubling part
is that they could not have succeeded even if they had tried, and that
they are unlikely to succeed in the near future. This is because of several
reasons.
In Northeast Asia, past historical issues still loom large in regional
inter-state relations. The Yasukuni visits by Japanese prime ministers, the
history textbook issue and the comfort women issue all incite nationalist
feelings. The Sino-Japanese rivalry (a more structural issue) makes it even
harder for regional countries to begin and achieve a sense of community.
In Central Asia, functional needs led to the creation of the SCO, and it
remains the rationale behind the maintenance of the organization. There
is no transformative purpose or desire on the part of its member states
to consciously imagine themselves as a community, not merely a group
of like-minded states, and transform the goals of the organizations.
The ARF has also not been successful in terms of community build-
ing, nor is it likely to succeed in the future. Here the problem has less to
do with its purpose but more with its membership. There are simply too
many countries with too diverse preferences and historical experiences.
No one expects the ARF to contribute much to the community-building
process, although it has assisted its member states to better understand
36
the perspectives held by other countries.

In summary, the regional organizations have contributed to the
establishment and maintenance of regional order through norm-build-
ing process but they have largely failed to create a sense of community
among their members. An exception is ASEAN, which has created at the
elite level a sense of diplomatic and economic community.
Institutional Complementarity or Competition

Before making any policy recommendations, I would like to raise the issue
of institutional complementarity and/or competition. Are the regional
organizations complementing one another or are they more in competi-
tion against one another? The answer, as usual, is “It depends”. It depends
on two things: (i) which set of organizations are being discussed and (ii)
the nature of the organizations.
To my mind, ASEAN and the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) complement
each other, as do ASEAN and the ARF. The ARF and APEC complement
each other very nicely, given their near-identical membership structures.
One focuses on security, and the other on economics, and there is much
synergy to be gained from interaction between the two. Indeed, it might
even be possible to combine both organizations under the leadership of
a common secretariat.
However, there are institutions that are in competition too. The ARF
and the SPT is one such example. Both involve the major great powers and
both deal with key regional security issues. Thus far, due to the limited
focus of the SPT, not much competition has arisen. However, if the SPT
develops along the lines outlined in its February 2007 statement, both
will be in direct competition. To avoid such an eventuality, perhaps some
division of labour would better serve the question of regional security
management: the SPT can deal with key issues in Northeast Asia while
the ARF can focus more broadly on issues affecting the greater region
of East Asia.
The development of the SCO can also undermine the effectiveness
of the ARF, and the vice versa. As mentioned previously, the strategic
rationale behind the creation of the SCO is to counter the growing U.S.
37
influence in Central Asia. If this rationale intensifies in the future, the ARF
can obviously suffer from it, since both the Unites States and China are
the two most important participants in the ARF. Unquestioningly, China
and the Unites States hold the key to the future development of regional
security organizations. Due to their size and power, they hold an effective
veto power on the pace and direction of organizational development.
Conclusion
The Sentosa Roundtable is based upon the premise that creating a com-
munity is good for peace and development. This is a reasonable assump-
tion, since a community would less likely envision the use of force to settle
disputes between members. How then can we develop communities?
Deepening economic interdependence through trade and investment,
enhanced people-to-people flows and increased trust are all important.
In other words, continue what countries have been trying to do thus far,
and do more of it if possible. But other things can be done differently
or better. Since its inception, the ARF has spent a great deal of time for
building mutual confidence and trust among ots members. Of late, it
has also begun joint exercises in maritime security among its members,
and will soon embark on similar activities in disaster relief. This is still
part of confidence building, although one can view it as a nascent form
of preventive diplomacy.
What the ARF needs to do is to move towards the expansion of joint
exercises into other areas such as terrorism, where there is an obvious
need for regional cooperation. At the same time, its member states need
to deepen the depth of their activities. Hence, rather than merely hold-
ing joint exercises, its member countries can sign a binding agreement
to implement certain concrete policies. Such policies do not have to be
about national security issues; they can be simple agreements about the
timing and nature of joint exercises and so on. But doing so will carry a
lot of symbolic value.
38
3
A Problem-Driven Approach to
East Asian Regionalism
Shin-wha Lee
A
s the experience in the post-Cold War era has shown, multi-
lateral institutions certainly obtain considerable leverage in
the international relations of East Asia. Regarding the future
direction of regional security order, international institutions function
not only as the arena for discussion but also as a means to construct a
stable, elastic and adaptive regional community structure. Still, in order to
analyse the degree of influence of international institutions as a variable
in international relations, we need to restrict the domain of our analysis
to sub-regions. Both geographically and functionally, Asia as a region
shares few common denominators in military and non-traditional secu-
rity matters. Approaches to international and regional institutions also
differ in sub-regions, especially in Northeast and Southeast Asia.
Whither the Relevance of Institutions

In Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
which was established in 1967, could be seen as the first institutionalized
effort to promote regional cooperation. However, ASEAN was unable to
play any significant role in promoting regional cooperation during the first
decade of its existence, as member states were often more preoccupied
with addressing their domestic issues rather than issues of regional con-
cern. Nevertheless, ASEAN became the focus of international attention
in 1976 and 1977, when its member states reaffirmed their commitment
39
to promoting peace, freedom and political independence in the South-

east Asian region at the ASEAN summit meetings held in Indonesia
and Malaysia, respectively. Though cooperation efforts since then have
mostly been focused on addressing economic issues, there have been
recent efforts to increase security cooperation within the frameworks of
ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). However, these efforts
have mostly remained at the level of exchanging information or ideas on
issues of common concern, and have been insufficient in the develop-
ment of any specific regulations and enforcement authority aimed at
promoting regional security.
The level of inter-state cooperation in Northeast Asia lags further
behind that in Southeast Asia. The region not only lacks an institutional
mechanism for inter-governmental multilateral cooperation but also a
regional power with the legitimacy to assume a leading and responsible
role in regional collaboration. As economic regionalism has developed to
some extent in post-Cold War Northeast Asia, multilateral institutions
now seem to be accepted as a method to achieve revisionist goals for
China, Japan and South Korea. China, seeking to establish national status
as a great power, now emphasizes the value of multilateralism for the just,
legitimate and effective management of security issues. The Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), an ad hoc coalition of opponents to
U.S. dominance, in the view of some, represents such a development.
Japan, also pursuing to become a “normal” great power, has relied on its
active participation in regional and global institutions since the 1980s
to propel its political influence. For South Korea, multilateralism is now
accepted as a modality for achieving more autonomy from surrounding
great powers and to facilitate reunification with North Korea. Although
the tradition of bilateralism remains strong in Northeast Asia, multilat-
eralism is now a major agenda or common goal in bilateral talks.
The role of regional institutionalism in Northeast Asia needs to be
evaluated by issue area. Regarding traditional military security issues,
the core alliance triangle comprising the United States, Japan and South
Korea remains influential despite recent disharmony, with the possibility
of a China-Russia coalition emerging as a rival. There is little prospect
that this alliance structure would develop into a multilateral security
40
3 A Problem-Driven Approach to East Asian Regionalism
organization but the Six Party Talks (SPT) has demonstrated utility as a
mechanism for the multilateral management of military issues. Although
the compromise between North Korea and the United States—a bilateral
matter—was at the core of the nuclear crisis, the multilateral structure
of the SPT complements bilateral relations. Regarding non-traditional
security concerns such as energy, environment, human trafficking and
health, international institutions at the global level play a significant
role by coordinating national efforts or stimulating the states to create
regional cooperative mechanisms for dealing with those challenges.
However, obstacles to regionalism remain strong in Northeast Asia,
impeding the development of regional institutions. Many identify insuf-
ficient globalization and the modernization of regional states, which led
to unequal development and were accompanied by parochial state-cen-
tric views, as the major factors responsible for the underdevelopment of
regionalism in this region. Furthermore, the lack of legitimate leadership,
difficulties in finding common ideational ground, limited experience in
institutionalized cooperation and historical enmity have also obstructed
efforts to achieve full fledged regionalism. Unless these problems are
managed, regional institutions will only be able to play an adjunct role,
despite regional advocacy of the value of multilateralism.
Incongruence between IR Theory and Practice

Approaches based on the three major theoretical arguments of interna-
tional relations discipline (realism, liberalism and constructivism) seek
to provide parsimonious explanations of real-world events. A specific
analytic perspective may show its explanatory power by privileging a
certain approach over and to the exclusion of others. However, theoretical
parsimony often does not comport with the complexity of the real world.
In this respect, the empirical analysis of regional institutions cannot
be reduced solely to either contractual institutionalism or sociological
institutionalism. When considering the characteristics of regionalism and
multilateralism, a problem- rather than approach-driven style of analysis
better fits the complexity of regional institution building.
Regionalism is often an ambiguous concept, defined and redefined
41
through different relations of time and space. Past studies on regionalism,

including the earlier functionalist and neo-functionalist proposals and
the latest arguments of “new regionalism”, have encountered this conun-
drum. An analytic definition of regionalism requires us to capture first
its static or unchanging features, but because regionalism is a dynamic
phenomenon realized through state interaction, it is also necessary to
leave the concept open and adaptive to political, economic and social
developments. Regionalism represents the formalization of political and
socio-economic ties among the countries in a region but it also implies
the phenomenon of those ties in operation.
No single epistemology or ontology dominates the study of regional-
ism, but various approaches illuminate what needs to be included. Each
confirms the necessity of looking at domestic and international factors
together in order to understand a region, which is an intermediate level
between the two. Regionalism is taking place between a globalizing world,
where the concept of sovereignty is disintegrating, and the continuing
assertiveness of sovereignty, which constantly reaffirms state autonomy.
Regionalism is a political process that is pursued in accordance with each
state’s own strategic goals and thus is in the middle of formation and ref-
ormation, but there are elemental facets that are resistant to changes.
A Regional Architecture in Transition

The 1997 regional financial crisis and the contagion effect of the eco-
nomic shock provided a big momentum in transcending the geographical
difference between Northeast and Southeast Asia and advanced East
Asian cooperation. ASEAN countries initiated regular meetings at the
cabinet and head-of-government levels with their counterparts from
Japan, China and Korea <<AQ: Is this South Korea?>>. These meetings
take place both on a “ten-plus-three” as well as a “ten-plus-one” basis.
Since its inception in 1997, the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) process has
taken up various measures to expand and deepen cooperation between
the two sub-regions, and East Asian countries are now taking concrete
steps towards achieving the goals of closer integration and overcoming
commonly-held challenges. In 1999, the leaders of the APT adopted the
42
Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation. Although the financial crisis

weakened not only individual affected countries but also ASEAN as a
collective entity, ASEAN’s initiative to forge cooperation with the big
East Asian “three”, namely Japan China, and South Korea, has enabled
ASEAN to reinforce itself. In other words, an outward-looking and open
attitude has not weakened the relevance of ASEAN but rather consoli-
dated it. ASEAN’s initiative also proved instrumental for its Northeast
Asian partners, which never had an opportunity to develop the habit and
practice of thinking as a “collective three”. The APT process has there-
fore served as the “glue” that binds the three Northeast Asian countries
together, to a certain degree.
It is worth noting that ASEAN has attempted to widen regional
cooperation arrangements on the basis of a “concentric-circles approach”.
By consolidating cooperation among ASEAN countries, they can par-
ticipate more effectively in the larger regional grouping, which would in
turn strengthen their engagement at the global level. Therefore, ASEAN
member states would want to maintain their leadership in managing
the APT process not only because the establishment of the APT was
an ASEAN initiative but because they are concerned that the agenda
and interests of ASEAN would be prevailed by the broader regional
arrangements. Accordingly, the raison d’être of ASEAN and the APT
is to cope with the China challenge in the Southeast Asian and South
China Sea settings, not the Northeast Asia issues. ASEAN countries are
very apprehensive of their three “giant” partners from the north playing
a leadership role in the process of institutionalizing East Asian regional
cooperation. ASEAN countries have been strongly motivated to ensure
that they remain as the “hub” not only in the APT process but also in
the evolution of an East Asian community. In a nutshell, the APT is an
exclusively East Asian regional entity that then Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad of Malaysia has been advocating for years. This is distinct
from the inclusive regionalism of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC), which includes the United States and other Western states.
In comparison, the ARF, which was established by the ASEAN
Post-Ministerial Conference in 1994, is a forum that represents security
cooperation among Asia-Pacific countries, including the United States,
43
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It aims to enhance dialogue and

cooperation for peace and stability, as well as facilitate confidence-build-
ing and preventive diplomacy, in the Asia-Pacific region. The founding
of the ARF symbolized a transition from a Cold War security order to a
post-Cold War security order. In the Cold War era, East Asian regional
security was principally defined by bilateral alliances. A bilateral alliance is
an effective measure for allies facing a common threat. However, with the
end of the Cold War, and the attendant diminution of the Soviet threat, the
concept of security was expanded to include the non-traditional aspects
of security, and thus introduced the concept of comprehensive security.
Particularly in Southeast Asia, environmental issues have become a
crucial concern for regional security.
While the ARF has proved useful as a multilateral security dialogue
forum, it lags well behind the Organization of Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) in institutional terms. The ARF merely sustains its image
as an East Asian security mechanism. Moreover, security perspectives of
the countries in East Asia have not yet overcome “individual state-centric”
thinking. Even as any discussion or proposals on the institutionalization
of regional cooperation efforts would first require a concrete examination
of how to coordinate respective national interests and different policy
directions, the task of establishing a regional security cooperation regime
that would satisfy all countries involved will be a tall order.
In addition, just like the APT process, ASEAN member states
want to remain at the core of the ARF, which was also the result of an
ASEAN initiative. It is unlikely that security issues in the Northeast
Asian region, such as the Korean question, will be priority security
concerns for the ARF. There are increasing claims within the North-
east Asian region to develop an independent cooperation forum or a
separate framework for dialogue within the ARF and/or APT proc-
esses, which would address security issues indigenous or unique to
the Northeast Asian region. At present, Northeast Asian regionalism
remains undeveloped. The process of building an effective regional
security regime in Northeast Asia is expected to be a long and tedi-
ous task. Nevertheless, the whole process itself would be able to
promote dialogue and the exchange of views. This is significant, as
44
it will ultimately contribute to setting the stage for political dialogue

that will help promote regional security and peace. Northeast Asian
countries have attempted to increase regional confidence building and
cooperation efforts within the various East Asian and Asia-Pacific
frameworks, in line with the broader trend of regional cooperation
in other regions. On the other hand, political and security coopera-
tion among Northeast Asian countries has also recently emerged as
an important policy issue. Once a regional cooperation regime is
established, regardless of whether or not it succeeds in addressing
and resolving particular security issues, the regime itself will also
have the authority to promote inter-state cooperation efforts.
The institutionalization of regional multilateral security coop-
eration efforts can contribute to promoting peace and security in
the Northeast Asian region in many ways. First, the construction of
a regional multilateral security cooperation regime can regularize
dialogue among states in the region and in turn provide the oppor-
tunity for increased mutual understanding and cooperation on major
security issues.
Second, because a multilateral security cooperation regime aims
to enhance mutual interest and confidence building by conveying state
intentions and increasing the transparency of state activities, developing
and implementing the various mutual reassurance measures (MRMs) and
CBMs would be important in promoting multilateral security coopera-
tion in Northeast Asia. This is because this process can contribute to
accelerating arms reduction efforts and in turn help resolve regional as
well as international security threats.
Third, the institutionalization of regional security cooperation can
ensure a trade-friendly and economically sound region. In contrast, there
is a high possibility that the economy-first policies of states in the region
can contribute to increased regional security cooperation. For instance,
China has continually made efforts to consolidate its cooperation efforts
within the international community, as well as within the region so as to
maintain its high level of economic development. Moreover, there are
prospects that China will actively make an effort to increase multilateral
security cooperation in the region in order to consolidate its position as
45
a regional power and thus undermine the influence of the United States
and Japan in the region.
Fourth, a multilateral security cooperation regime can contribute to
promoting regional peace and stability by providing fundamental prin-
ciples and codes of conduct in conducting inter-state relations among
states in the region. As confidence building in Europe first started with
the adoption of fundamental principles, a stable regional order can
be constructed in Northeast Asia by establishing a code of conduct in
carrying out regional multilateral security dialogue and cooperation
efforts. Provisions that can be applied for regulating state relations in
the Northeast Asian region include those that relate to guaranteeing
state and territorial sovereignty, the non-use of force, non-intervention
in internal affairs as well as specific provisions that relate to promoting
economic cooperation, environmental protection and cooperation in
combating terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime and illegal migra-
tion. Thus, the institutionalization of multilateral security cooperation
efforts is viewed as a step towards strengthening preventive diplomacy
as such efforts can decrease or remove the possibility of conflict from
occurring.
In summary, the security environment of Northeast Asia is under-
going change in the midst of competition among the United States,
Japan, China and Russia for regional power. In other words, the security
situation in the region is rapidly undergoing change at the middle of
the various conflict situations brought about by U.S. plans for a missile
defence system, Sino-Japanese competition for regional hegemony, ter-
ritorial issues, the Taiwan question, the U.S.-led “war on terrorism” and
the remilitarization of Japan, among others. At the same time, it has
become more important for countries in the region to make a collective
and multilateral approach in addressing regional security issues as well
as discuss ways to relieve military tensions and build trust through a
multilateral security cooperation regime, in line with efforts to maintain
existing bilateral security frameworks in the region. Northeast Asian
countries have more or less arrived at a consensus on to the need to build
a “bi-multilateral cooperation framework” that would help promote peace
and security in the region.
46
The Case for an Issue-Specific Approach to

Regionalism
For East Asia’s regional institutions to be effective, they need to be issue
specific. With the United States playing a crucial role in regional security
matters, regional institutionalism in Northeast Asia, and to some extent
in East Asia, can neither be geographically based nor exclusive. Regional
security arrangements are part and parcel of regionalism. Security
regionalism includes removing conflict-generating factors or changing
them into cooperative relations; it consists in the peaceful management
of the issues. Certain countries face similar security threats and the
destabilization of any country within the regional group can bring severe
consequences to all other states within the region. Still, membership of a
regional security complex is decided not only by geographical proximity
but also by the salience of a state’s role in a given issue area. For exam-
ple, the United States can be a member of the Northeast Asian security
complex since its actions have decisive influenced the regional security
matter and also because it is highly sensitive to what happens in that
region. Approaches based on geographically defined regional security
complexes ignore the magnitude of the U.S. role in security matters. The
post-Cold War security order of Northeast Asia is in many ways defined
largely by the United States. Indeed, a U.S.-led global security structure
has been the key factor in deciding regional security structures in East
Asia; it has provided norms, rules and agendas.
Towards East Asian Community: Regional

Institutionalisms
Discussions on the future establishment of an East Asian Community
(EAC) were enlivened with the release of the report of the East Asia
Vision Group (EAVG) in 2001. The report proposed the evolution of the
APT process into an East Asia Summit (EAS) as a means of realizing the
EAC. The mandate of the EAVG, a two-year project that ran from 1999 to
2001, was to formulate a common vision reflecting the rapidly changing
regional and global environment and to provide the direction for future
cooperation among East Asian countries. EAVG members, composed of
47
two non-governmental experts from each ATP member country, submit-

ted their vision reports to the APT meeting in Brunei in November 2001.
The report envisioned East Asia as evolving from a region of nations to a
bona fide regional community and emphasized the necessity of regional
cooperation in all aspects of society, including economic, political, secu-
rity, environmental, social, cultural and educational areas. The members
deliberated on such key questions as what the ultimate goals of East
Asian cooperation should be, how such goals can be achieved and what
institutional framework is required. They also recognized that the East
Asian cooperation process should move beyond government efforts to
involve the broader society and the people of the region.
On its part, the East Asian Study Group (EASG), launched in 2001
and comprising members of the APT Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM)
process, was mandated to review the modalities of cooperation in East
Asia by both the government and private sectors. Its tasks were to assess
recommendations contained in the final report of the EAVG and sort out
concrete measures for East Asian regional cooperation, and to explore
the implications of an East Asian summit.
Both the EAVG and EASG reports considered concrete implementa-
tion measures for further regional cooperation. Both propose the evolu-
tion of the APT process into the EAS and establishment of an East Asian
community. In particular, the EASG stresses that the APT framework
would remain the only credible and realistic vehicle to advance the form
and substance of regional cooperation in East Asia. But the discussions
revealed that ASEAN might be marginalized if the transition towards
an EAS moves too fast, and that the EAS might be overburdened by too
many meetings. In addition, steps would be necessary to nurture a greater
sense of ownership among all members in striving towards greater East
Asian cooperation. It was thus agreed that the EAS should be part of an
evolutionary and step-by-step process.
After the official decision to launch an EAS was made at the 2004
APT, a first EAS was held in December 2005 in Kuala Lumpur. Taking a
political rather than a geographical classification, ASEAN leaders brought
Australia, New Zealand and India together with extant APT member
states (with Russia granted observer status). The formation of this new
48
grouping invited controversy. For example, former Malaysian Prime

Minister Mahathir criticized the summit as a “useless” club, although
this new regional entity brought to fruition his idea of an East Asian
Economic Grouping (subsequently changed to Caucus) proposed in the
late 1980s. He argued that the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand
would dampen East Asia’s voice.
EAS: Who Best to Lead?

The dispute over who would drive the EAS should also be settled.
Incumbent Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi stressed that the
APT and the EAS should exist in parallel but the APT (and particularly
ASEAN) would be in the “driver’s seat” in building the East Asian Com-
munity since the EAS “would neither replace nor be an alternative to the
APT”.1 Together with China, Malaysia wants the APT to play a leading role
for a future East Asian community-building process. All other ASEAN
member states, just like in the APT and ARF processes, stress that the
driving force in community building is neither the EAS nor the APT, but
ASEAN itself, as per the Kuala Lumpur Declaration.
On the contrary, although the EAS still represents a big leap from
the APT, Japan and Indonesia want the EAS to be the principal means
for regional cooperation. The inclusion of Australia and New Zealand
(and subsequently India) was part of an endeavour by Japan, Indonesia
and Singapore, which wanted to counterbalance the possible dominance
of China in the evolving regional order and security architecture. The
settlement of this dispute over the summit’s leadership will be a vital
issue in the new balancing game within the East Asian region building
process.
Another salient component of the East Asian Community is the
exclusion of the United States, which currently is neither a member nor
an observer in the EAS. Washington is concerned that China would play
a regional hegemonic role in this largest association of Asian countries
(representing almost half the world’s population)—at the expense of the
United States. Unlike in the case of its strong opposition to Mahathir’s
proposal for the EAEG, the United States this time has had to accept the
49
new economic and political reality developing in East Asia. Washington

seems to have no choice but to promote strategic partnership with China,
the world’s fastest growing market, as other Asian countries will not join
an anti-Chinese alliance even if the United States attempts to recreate
its Cold War rivalry with China. In turn, China wishes to maintain good
relations with the United States not only because the latter is China’s
most important trade partner but because China needs Washington to
overcome challenges and vulnerabilities in its increasing integration into
the world economy. Whether the rise of China is regarded as an oppor-
tunity for cooperation or a threat to regional peace will be a crucial point
in projecting the future of an East Asian community.
Conclusion
When East Asians speak of regional integration or regional community,
it is unclear at times whether they mean the larger Asia-Pacific region
or the more limited East Asian region. Those who advocate the Asia
Pacific as one regional unit observe the East Asian community movement
with reservation; some even see it as an obstacle to a broader regional
cooperation process. On the other hand, there is growing support for
the establishment of a “Northeast Asia-specific” institution. In the case
of Europe, the region was fairly well defined compared to Asia. Thus far,
none of the existing cooperative mechanisms (whether ASEAN, the APT,
the ARF or the EAS) has taken on a central coordinating responsibility.
In most cases, the level of regional multilateral collaboration has not
progressed beyond the exchange of information or agenda setting for
regional cooperation, with few concrete regional regulatory policies or
measures. This reflects the nature and limitations of regional institutions
where the primacy of national interests is unquestioned. Furthermore,
ASEAN’s own community-building process, as laid out in the ASEAN
II Concord, can prove potentially thorny. ASEAN’s insistence that it
remains at the core of any East Asian community-building effort may also
create problems with some of its Northeast Asian neighbours. Finally,
efforts towards regional community will continue despite such obstacles.
The likelihood is that a “bi-multilateral cooperation framework”—i.e. a
50
multilateral mechanism to complement existing bilateral relations and

alliances—will emerge.
Note
1. Frank Frost and Ann Rann, “The East Asia Summit, Cebu, 2007: Issues
and prospects”, E-Brief, 1 December (updated 20 December 2006),
Canberra: Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia. Available at
www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/FAD/eastasia_summit2007.htm.
51
4
In Praise of Issue-Based
Institutionalism
Ways Forward for ASEAN
and East Asian Regionalism
Shiping Tang
T
he original institutionalism in International Relations (IR) has
been excessively influenced by functionalism in sociology and
anthropology. This is so despite the fact that functionalism had
already been discredited in the latter disciplines by the time Robert
Keohane wrote his treatise.1 In functionalism, every institution (i.e.
organization) exists for a purpose. Yet, functionalism has little to say
about how institutions emerge. It does not have a theory of institutional
change, nor does it have a theory of institutional system or social order.2
Keohane and his followers, however, departed from functionalism in
sociology and anthropology in one important aspect: institutionalism
IR takes organizations as institutions. This is not the way sociology and
other social sciences approach it. For most scholars, institutions are
(informal or formal) rules of social life. In fact, Douglass North took pains
to make sure that organizations are not quite the same as institutions.
Organizations are actors in social life, whereas institutions are supposed
to be rules of social life.3 I think this emphasis has its merits.
Organizations versus Institutions

I therefore regard ASEAN, the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) and so forth
as organizations, not institutions. Of course, an organization must have
some rules to operate, though rules do not make an organization an
institution. Once we have the general theory of institutional change,
52
4 In Praise of Issue-Based Institutionalism
Ways Forward for ASEAN and East Asian Regionalism
in which heart lies the struggle for power to impose rules, it becomes
apparent that whereas in domestic politics, the state (or an actor who won
the struggle of power to impose rules) can impose his preferred rules,
there is no possibility of imposing a whole institutional system (or a set
of rules or order) in post-World War II international politics, save the
American imposition of order in Western Europe and in Japan and the
Soviet imposition of order in Eastern Europe. Both cases of successful
order making were backed by supreme power. Without the backing of
power, it would have been impossible to impose an order.
With the principles of territorial integrity and state sovereignty
enshrined in international politics (which was, without doubt, a major
progress in international life), no country can impose an order through
military force upon another country without provoking international
uproar. As such, even between two states with significant differences in
their level of physical power, the weaker state can still bargain with the
stronger state, knowing full well that the stronger state cannot just invade
it. As such, rules-based organizations can only be created by making
specific rules for specific issues. To create a system, you first make two
(or more) parts. Issue-based rules are what make rules-based institutions.
Essentially, all institutions are initially issue-driven, but then agents design
a broad system of rules. Eventually, these issues-based rules gel into a
system, thus facilitating the emergence of a rules-based system.
Within ASEAN, there is at its surface no possibility for any single
country to impose an order. In fact, the opposite is true. Because ASEAN
relies on the ASEAN Way of consensus and consultation, any member
state in fact has a sort of veto power on the whole organization’s attempt
to impose a set of rules. Thus, for a still-developing institution like the
ASEAN, issue-based rules is the natural road towards a more rules-based
institution or organization. For an organization such as ASEAN, which
lacks enforcement mechanisms, it has to make rules first. In this respect,
broader rules (i.e. a charter) can only be a very general thing, subject to
differing interpretation and usually based on the lowest common denomi-
nator. For specific issues, states still have to haggle with each other and
hammer out some rules.
53
Conclusion
The crackdown on protesters in Myanmar, the haze from Indonesia, cli-
mate change and so on can be testing grounds for the capacity of ASEAN
to make specific rules for specific issues. If ASEAN can come up with
some specific and explicit rules on coping with these issues, ASEAN
should be considered a success, even if its charter does not have much
binding power. In terms of the ASEAN Plus Three and the East Asia
Summit (EAS), there is no easy way to move forward. The EAS is better
understood as a way to balance the weight of the Northeast Asian powers,
specifically China, within the context of East Asian regionalism. This is
not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if the EAS makes the ASEAN
states and the United States feel more secure. But certainly, it will be far
more difficult to make binding rules within the EAS.
Notes
1. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the
World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
2. Talcott Parsons, The Social System (New York: Free Press, 1951); Jon
Elster, The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989).
3. Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic
Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
54
5
ASEAN’s “Leadership” of East
Asian Regionalism
Ron Huisken
A
SEAN can justly be proud of the pioneering role it has played
in introducing the society of states in East Asia to the potential
for multilateral processes to make a positive contribution to
stability, harmony and prosperity in the region. ASEAN has set out quite
deliberately to lead the process of forging a stronger sense of community
in East Asia and to conduct what might be called a “managed open-door
policy” with respect to the engagement of major powers in Southeast
Asia. Quite naturally, ASEAN is very keen to avoid domination by any one
major power and the aggressive competition among the major powers to
achieve such dominance. ASEAN does not want to be forced to choose
one power over another so it aspires to ensure that all interested major
powers have a stake in the stability and security of Southeast Asia and
feel effectively constrained (or socialized) as to the means they employ
to accumulate influence in the region. A task that is strongly implicit
in this strategic objective is the one of shaping relations between the
major powers. It is also reasonable to suppose that ASEAN leaders saw
this outward-focused mission as helpful in developing further cohesion
within ASEAN, not least in the sense that the association could not cred-
ibly promote forms of regionalism in Greater Asia that ASEAN itself did
not exemplify or was not ready to embrace.
Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, ASEAN has established
a near monopoly over these regional community-building processes.
Moreover, ASEAN is overtly defensive of its leadership role. It is virtu-
55
ally a rule that statements emerging from these forums reiterate ASEAN
leadership. Thus, statements from the second East Asia Summit (EAS)
and the 10th ASEAN Plus Three (APT) in January 2007 refer to “ASEAN
as the driving force” while the statement from the 12th ASEAN Summit,
also held in January 2007, reaffirmed “that ASEAN should consolidate
its leading and central role in the evolving regional architecture”.
One thoughtful and sympathetic investigation into how ASEAN has
conceptualized the challenge it faces to manage and guide the postures
of the major powers towards Southeast Asia suggests that the broad
objective has been to aspire to a hierarchical regional order that retains
America’s dominant superpower position while incorporating China in
a regional great-power position just below it. Many observers may be
inclined to regard geopolitical fine-tuning on this scale as a pipe dream,
particularly if the practitioners are a group of mostly small-to-medium
sized countries whose own cohesiveness is relatively modest. On the
other hand, ASEAN has indisputably enjoyed a measure of success.
Southeast Asia itself is free of any serious prospect of inter-state conflict
(indeed, the region has steadily strengthened its credentials as a de facto
Deutschian “security community” or a grouping of states characterized
by confident expectations of peaceful change) and the intersection of
great-power interests in the region has thus far been managed without
significant stress.1
An “ASEAN Plus” Approach to Regional Leadership?

The questions worth asking therefore are, first, “How is it that ASEAN
has managed to protect its claim to be the leader and driving force of
regionalism in East Asia?” and, second, “Is it sensible for the wider region
to rely on ASEAN to succeed unaided?” My own answer to the second
question is probably “No”. A key to the success of ASEAN’s game plan
is to engineer deeper engagement between and the development of col-
legiate instincts amongst the major powers beyond the arena of South-
east Asia. However one assesses ASEAN’s success in building a sense of
Asian community, it is harder to argue that it is making clear headway
in bringing the major powers together. Just as the command economies
56
5 ASEAN’s “Leadership” of East Asian Regionalism
learnt that banishing market forces was an exercise in futility, multilat-

eral security processes must work within the realities of the extant and
prospective relative strategic weight of states in the grouping. From our
present standpoint, few can imagine regionalism in East Asia taking on
the deep, institutionalized integration and the substantial pooling of
sovereignty that characterizes the European Union. And in the absence
of such a development, no imaginable development of multilateralism
in Asia can significantly displace the elemental instincts that states have
to deter or defend themselves against perceived threats to their national
interests and aspirations.
Two relationships of irreducible importance to the future of East
Asia remain disappointingly—some would say even ominously—resist-
ant to transformation in the direction of constructive partnerships:
those between the United States and China, and between China and
Japan. The U.S.-China relationship continues to be characterized by
powerful—and shared—instincts of caution and watchfulness. Things
are moving in East Asia, all the way down to the “tectonic plates” or
basic relationships of power and influence that determine the direc-
tions of change and who shapes these directions. So far, however, none
of the key players seems prepared to anticipate this fact and to begin
the process of ensuring a soft landing by exploring the parameters of
a smooth accommodation.
Similarly, in the case of China and Japan, Asia’s approximate equiva-
lent to centuries of German-French rivalry, the first 20 years after World
War II passed without a serious effort at reconciliation because they were
on opposite sides of the Cold War divide. The next 20 years were also
lost in favour of joint vigilance towards the Soviet Union. Since the end
of the Cold War, competition for influence in East Asia has flourished
alongside growing economic integration. With neither side inclined to
launch and sustain bold policies to transform the relationship, the weight
of history has dragged it down.
It seems clear that all three powers are not yet prepared to subject
their wider bilateral relationship to the discipline and constraints of an
institutionalized process. The prevailing judgement in all three capitals
appears to be that preserving maximum autonomy still seems to promise
57
better outcomes compared to signalling a preparedness to consider col-

lective management of regional affairs. And, to answer the first of the
questions posed above, in the absence of such preparedness, the major
powers have been content to leave the field to ASEAN, confident in
ASEAN’s assurances that it would a cautious and careful driver proceed-
ing at a pace comfortable to all.
Perhaps the most conspicuous manifestation of tensions in these
vital bilateral relationships has been the propensity to develop separate
regional networks that exclude the leader of the “opposing” camp. China
has made plain its strong preference to see East Asian regionalism taken
forward in the APT forum rather than in the EAS. Both exclude America
but the latter includes India, Australia and New Zealand all of whom are
deemed, to varying degrees, to be sympathetic to U.S. interests. China
has also invested a great deal of energy in accelerating the development
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), doing things in and
with this body that it has been much more cautious about in the ASEAN
Regional Forum. The “matching” developments on the other side include
the Trilateral Security Dialogue (the United States, Japan and Australia)
and the more nascent proposal for a quadrilateral coalition of democra-
cies (the United States, Japan, India and Australia).
The China Question

Beijing constitutes ASEAN’s biggest challenge in the latter’s attempt to
organize the major powers into a stable and durable alignment. Broadly
speaking, ASEAN’s difficulty with the United States has always been
that Washington’s attention has been too little and too inconstant rather
than too much. This is not a difficulty that it is likely to encounter with
Beijing. China is huge, proximate and contiguous (three ASEAN states
share a land border with China). Moreover, in the light, inter alia, of Chi-
na’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea, it seems likely that Beijing
views Southeast Asia as part of its proper sphere of influence, that is, a
region in which it should be able to create a disposition to put Beijing’s
interests ahead of those of other major powers. Failure to achieve this
would allow the region to be a vulnerability, a chink in the armour, as
58
China aspires to develop beyond the ranks of a major power into the
realms of a great power.
As is well known, there is a full spectrum of views on how far and how
high the goals of China’s elite may reach. There is substantial unanimity,
however, on the judgements that China is committed to being a serious
and determined player in “the game of nations” that it has resolved to
take time to develop its strengths evenly and avoid being lured into an
unbalanced development, that it has a strong preoccupation with the
measurable dimensions of national power and a decidedly traditional
“realist” perspective on why the international system works as it does.
China’s authoritarian government can and has deployed the nation’s
assets with skill and disciplined consistency. At the same time, its most
formidable competitor, the United States, is not only intrinsically less
capable of disciplined consistency in foreign policy but has found itself
saddled with a strategic blunder in Iraq that has soaked up all of its politi-
cal energy for some six years and caused a disturbing erosion of its moral
authority as the world’s pre-eminent state. Thus, while China’s trajectory
has been sharply and substantively positive, its ascent is perceived as
even more dramatic because of what has been happening to the United
States. And perceptions, of course, can be and often are very important,
especially so, perhaps, at the present moment when the possible fallout
from the quagmire in Iraq includes a U.S. slide towards isolationism.
One senses that, at the present moment, circumstances have pre-
sented ASEAN with rather more China than many of its members
are comfortable with, and with the outlook for an effective and timely
re-balancing exercise on the part of the United States or Japan pretty
doubtful. The still ill-defined relationship between the APT and the
EAS, and the vigorous political manoeuvre going on behind the scenes
in support of rival visions for this relationship, would seem to reflect
this concern. The exclusion of America from these fora is problematic
only in the sense that there is no forum on East Asia with real authority
and a broad agenda that the United States is part of. A further option is
potentially available in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum. In 1989, APEC was the pioneering venture in multilateralism. It
was elevated to summit level by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and has
59
managed to bring the leaders together every year since. Unfortunately,

APEC is an awkward structure that reflects regional hesitations about
multilateralism prevalent when it began, and neither its structure nor
its agenda has evolved to match the authority and responsibility of the
heads of government that participate in its meetings. When APEC has
addressed non-trade issues such as terrorism or East Timor, it has been
on an ad hoc basis and required the interested government(s) to make
a determined political effort to commandeer the agenda. The potential
of APEC has in a sense been wasted. Whether the competition from the
APT and the EAS can evoke the political courage to revamp APEC and
make it a more central player in the unfolding drama of regionalism in
East Asia remains to be seen.
There is no prospect that current or foreseeable stresses arising from
major-power engagement in Southeast Asia will result in conflict between
the ASEAN states. The more real concern is that China’s engagement will
weigh unevenly on the ASEAN states and that eventual U.S. or Japanese
countervailing steps, possibly sharpened by a sense of having already
lost a lot of ground, will focus where China’s influence is least developed
and put pressure on the association’s cohesiveness. Further, there has
been speculation that the United States is likely, over time, to concede
that trying to keep the Korean peninsula out of Beijing’s orbit would be
a fruitless exercise. Something similar can be envisaged for Southeast
Asia with the United States eventually settling on balancing China from
the island states that encircle East Asia.
Conclusion
In short, it seems that the risk is very real that ASEAN will find that it
lacks the muscle to pull off its experiment in geopolitical fine-tuning.
ASEAN will need help, ideally in the form of a forum in which the major
powers are in the driver’s seat and in which they accept responsibility
to also try to devise a trajectory towards a stable accommodation for
the management of East Asia’s development. ASEAN leaders may be
well advised to weigh the merits of this proposal against the admittedly
attractive option of protecting ASEAN’s monopoly of multilateral proc-
60
esses, and then to consider how they can best deploy their considerable
influence in this arena to bring about the desired outcome.
Note
1. Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:
ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (London and New York:
Routledge, 2001).
61
6
No Community Sans Concert?
The Role of Great Powers in
Institutionalizing an Asian Security
Community
Tang Siew Mun
T
he Asian security landscape today is arguably more complex
and fluid compared to the relative stability and predictability of
the Cold War period. Granted that the bifurcation along ideo-
logical lines during the Cold War era created a tense stand-off between
communist and non-communist states in the region, nonetheless, there
existed a clear strategic architecture that underpinned Asian security.
Both superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—maintained
a sizeable military presence in the region and had extensive military ties
with their allies. This structure began to unravel in the wake of the Cold
War, with the withdrawal of U.S. and Soviet troops and military assets
from the Philippines and Vietnam respectively. This development led
many observers to comment on the power vacuum in the region and the
“rise” of new powers to fill the strategic void. The end of the Cold War also
gave a new lease of life to regionalism, as evidenced by the introduction
of new regional arrangements (the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East
Asia Summit) and, in some cases, the deepening of existing structures
(ASEAN). The “new regionalism” of the post-Cold War era is markedly
different from those before in two important aspects. It is more inclu-
sive in nature, as evidenced by the East Asian Economic Group/Caucus
(EAEG/EAEC) proposal and the East Asia Summit (EAS). It is also noted
that Asian countries are more receptive to exploring avenues to include
security-related issues on the regionalism agenda. Heretofore, South-
62
6 No Community Sans Concert?
The Role of Great Powers in Institutionalizing an Asian Security Community
east Asian states—in the form of ASEAN—had shied away from any
region-wide security arrangement, opting instead to secure themselves
with bilateral security pacts with the great powers. Without discarding
the old networks, there appears to be a new willingness to explore new
ways to pursue security. One such measure is to create an Asian security
community.
An Asian Security Community: Who and What?

Efforts of forge an Asian security community must address two crucial
issues, notably, what constitutes “Asia” and what is meant by “community”.
Asia is a collage of many countries. Its sub-regions include Northeast
Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia. West Asia had traditionally been
outside the political sphere of “Asia” and thus does not factor in the cur-
rent formulation of an Asian security community. Clearly, the adoption
of “Asia” goes beyond nomenclature and has real political implications
and holds the key to the successful establishment of the security com-
munity. Issues surrounding membership had proved to be a major point
of contention in past attempts to form the EAEG/C. Similarly, Asian
states were caught in a political tussle over who should participate in
the inaugural East Asia Summit. The wheels of realpolitik were in over-
drive in the run-up to the summit. The jostling resulted in the inclusion
of India and Australia, ostensibly after strong lobbying from Japan, with
the intention to prevent the EAS from being dominated by the Chinese.
The machinations of balancing were clearly at work. This suggests that
even when states are willing to commit political capital and economic
resources towards building a community, national interest and compe-
tition with rivals remains pivotal. The composition of the community
would either “make or break” the endeavour. Each member brings with
it power and capabilities that enhance the value of the community but
they also bring along political baggage that undermines the cohesiveness
and dynamics of the group. Therefore, having the right mix of members
is crucial. Instead of being fixated on inclusion and not wanting to isolate
any member, an incipient community founded by a select group of like-
minded states can result in a cohesive and functional community.
63
How would such a community work? States act to protect and further
their respective national interests. To this end, states guard their sover-
eignty and are anathema to any design that can dilute their positions and
influence. The ASEAN Way of consensus decision-making effectively
gives each member a veto. This waydoes not lend itself to forwarding-
looking initiatives, as making progress is held hostage by the “lowest
denominator” state. Discarding the consensus decision-making model
means searching for a new modus operandi. The community should be
rules-based, with built-in safeguards to assure weaker member states that
they would not be strong-armed by the stronger members. Concomi-
tantly, the community must possess the institutional capacity to govern
relations among member states and crucially induce compliance.
For the community to survive and sustain itself, it needs to be func-
tional and serve the needs of its members. This calls for the institution-
alization of norms and a code of conduct, as well as clearly identifiable
expectations, contributions and commitment. “Cheating” and free-riding
must be addressed and prevented. Experience informs us that voluntary
participation and contribution in times of crises is an inefficient way
to foster cooperation. The stakes involved in security are high. Non-
cooperation can be fatal and adversely affect the sovereignty and safety
of states. A security community thus envisioned goes beyond existing
frameworks or structures. It should not replicate or serve as an adjunct
of existing formulations.
No Community Sans Great-Power Concert?

ASEAN introduced a novel approach to security through the enunciation
of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1971 as a
strategy to avoid great-power entanglement in the Cold War. ZOPFAN
was long on rhetoric and short on substance as it was widely accepted
that the ASEAN-5 (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand) were staunchly anti-communist and had strong political,
economic and military ties with the United States and its allies. The
internal contradictions of ZOPFAN meant that beyond diplomatic cir-
cles, it was never taken seriously. ASEAN’s attempt to remain “neutral”
64
drew a sceptical response from the United States. ASEAN’s search for
security led to the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC)
in 1976. The treaty commits all signatories to peaceful means in resolv-
ing differences and conflicts between them. In other words, parties to
the TAC pledge to forgo the use of force towards each other. Today, the
treaty encompasses ASEAN and non-ASEAN states (Australia, China,
India, Japan, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Russia and South Korea).
This document conforms to the Deutschian formulation of a “no-war
community”. The TAC is an important component of the Asian security
landscape but it has been ineffective in addressing security threats and
concerns. It lacks the capacity (and thereby reflects the lack of political
will of the signatories) to enforce peace. For example, there was little
ASEAN could rely on when Vietnam launched an all-out war against
Cambodia in 1978. Likewise, ASEAN is a mere bystander in the Korean
nuclear crisis. In the case of addressing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions,
Asia—including Japan—clearly passed the buck to the United States and,
to some extent, China. Existing multilateral security mechanisms such
as the ARF should constructively engage all protagonists in an effort to
contain conflicts.
Thus understood, a security community without the involvement and
commitment of the great powers—China, Japan and the United States—is
unrealistic. To realize the security community, the region needs these
powers to be acting in concert to provide stability. Although somewhat
idealistic, a concert of power system dampens great-power rivalry in the
region and prevents the region from turning into a battlefield for great-
power contestation. An Asian security community has to recognize the
central role played by the great powers in regional security. China, Japan
and the United States are perhaps the only actors that can and have an
interest to underwrite regional security. A community that includes the
great powers mitigates the possibility of Asian countries being used as
“pawns” in great-power rivalry and prevents Asia from being a “prize” as
well. Furthermore, notwithstanding their efforts at integration, Southeast
Asian states remain mired in the old mindset that they are more fearful
of each other than of others. Such suspicions and fear would be alleviated
if there is a formal and functional security regime that outlaws wars.
65
Critics of the concert system are quick to dismiss the likelihood of

China, Japan and U.S. collaboration. To be sure, these powers have their
own agenda and strategic concerns. However, there is a common tread
that binds them—regional peace and stability. The region’s strategic sea
lines of communication and economic dynamism makes it imperative
for all stakeholders to avoid any form of conflagration. This is a good
basis from which to build a community. This essentially hierarchical
community—with the great powers at the apex and the other members
as “second-tier” entities—resolves a strategic dilemma among Asian
countries. This framework makes deciding to balance against China or
to bandwagon with China moot. Similarly, Asian states no longer have
to choose between China and Japan. With the great powers underwrit-
ing regional security—resulting in the erasure of the security dilemma
among Asian states—and the balancing effect of the great powers within
this structure, the strategic perception moves from security against to
security with. The operationalization of the community needs to be nego-
tiated and embodied in a charter to insure against abuses and facilitate
the smooth functioning of the community. A concert model with China,
Japan and the United States each playing their respective roles in provid-
ing, maintaining and enforcing security addresses the issue of capacity,
while the internal balancing among the great powers ensures that effort
by any one party at hegemony would be futile.
Conclusion
Asian commentators and analysts often argue that Asia is different from
Europe and the West. Relationships are based on trust. Cultural differ-
ences had—in the past—been used to preclude formal and legalistic
approaches to regional relationships. This partly accounts for the prefer-
ence to order inter-state relations based on principles such as consulta-
tions, consensus and non-interference. Support for the “old regime” is
eroding and, as evidenced by the draft of the ASEAN Charter, Southeast
Asia appears to be undergoing a sea change. States need to evolve and
conform to the exigencies of the times and strategic environment to
survive and prosper. The pendulum appears to be swinging—even ever
66
so slightly—towards hard institutionalization and legalistic approaches

to international politics.
ASEAN and the proposed East Asia Community provide the building
blocks for a future Asian security community. However, both formula-
tions share the same institutional weakness—capacity. With ASEAN
seemingly “in the driver’s seat” of both the proposed ASEAN security
community and the Asia security community, these communities would
be ineffective and are not expected to go beyond the “talk shop” threshold
and confidence building.
The security community envisioned here is one that has a high
degree of institutionalization and possesses the capacity to address and
resolve security-related issues. The community—formulated around
the concert model—relegates responsibility and authority to the great
powers to maintain regional order. There is not a new state of affairs as
the great powers—directly or indirectly—currently exert influence and
have the capacity to shape regional affairs. By incorporating these powers
into a regional framework, it serves to mitigate great-power competi-
tion and dampen suspicion among Asian states. Bestowing legitimacy
to these powers effectively transforms them as stakeholders, which in
turn enhances regional security. The hierarchical structure of the said
community is an acknowledgement of the power disparity between the
powers and other Asian states, and this appears to be a bearable price
to pay in exchange for order and stability.
A new institution and framework outside existing models need to
be considered. Present frameworks lack the capacity and political will to
tackle security issues in a serious and concerted manner. Real security
issues often become hostage to niceties of diplomacy. A concert-based
community requires the collusion of the great powers—which are
entrusted to exercise their hegemony in a benign fashion—and accept-
ance by Asian states. Both are problematic. The key lies in securing the
cooperation of the great powers. In the mould of the Singaporean “excep-
tionalism”, once the system is set in place, the benefits and pragmatic
considerations of the community would set in motion dynamics towards
the enlargement of the community. Unlike non-traditional security issues,
67
not all states share the same strategic perspectives. Thus, a security com-
munity should have as its members those with similar security concerns,
leaving out those with differing outlooks.
68
Contributors
Ron HUISKEN
Senior Fellow at the Strategic Defence Studies Centre, Australian National
University
Shin-wha LEE
Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science and Interna-
tional Relations, Korea University
Christopher B. ROBERTS
Post-Doctoral Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Yongwook RYU
Doctoral candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University
See Seng TAN

Associate Professor and Programme Coordinator for Multilateralism and
Regionalism, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore
Convenor of the Sentosa Roundtable
Shiping TANG
Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the China Programme, S. Rajaratnam
School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore
TANG Siew Mun

Lecturer, School of History, Politics and Strategic Studies, Faculty of
Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
69
About the Multilateralism
and Regionalism Programme
The Multilateralism and Regionalism Programme is one of the most

active and prolific of research programmes at the S. Rajaratnam School
of International Studies (RSIS), a professional graduate school within the
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) of Singapore. Inagurated in
2001, the programme conducts high-quality academic and policy-ori-
ented research on multilateral and/or regional cooperation in the Asia-
Pacific and its sub-regions (East, Northeast, and Southeast Asia) on the
diplomatic, defence, political-security, and economic fronts. Its manifold
publications include numerous op-eds and commentaries, oft-cited policy
reports, books and monographs (both edited and single-authored) with
notable international presses, special issues of leading academic journals,
and the like. The programme also conducts numerous conferences, work-
shops and symposia, both independently as well as jointly with leading
research institutes and universities from around the world. To date, the
programme is the successful recipient of over a million dollars worth of
competitive research grants from diverse international sources such as
the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, AusAID,
and the ASEAN Secretariat. Headed by Associate Professor See Seng
Tan with the help of Dr Christopher Roberts, the programme consists
of a small core of associates from the RSIS faculty as well as visiting
researchers from the region and abroad.
70
W hat are the prospects of
transforming the Asian region
into a security community where
regional states commit to peaceful relations
and the avoidance of war with one another?
Do regional institutions and the ongoing
process of institutionalization in East Asia
contribute to the quest for the security, peace
and stability of the region? And how?
These are some of the questions that this

monograph addresses, through assessments
of the specific issues under consideration
by the Sentosa Roundtable Study Group
in its preparation for the second Sentosa
Roundtable. The group assessed the
relevance of regional inter-governmental
institutions—the ASEAN Regional Forum,
the ASEAN Plus Three, the East Asia
Summit and so forth—to regional security,
stability and community building in East
Asia, among other issues.

Do Institutions Matter

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Institutions Matter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Institutions Matter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Institutions

RSIS Monograph No. 13

Report of the Study Group for

Multilateralism & Regionalism Programme

First published in 2008

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

Body text set in 11/15 point Warnock Pro

1 East Asian Regionalism 19

2 The Primacy of Westphalian Logics 31

4 In Praise of Issue-Based Institutionalism 52

6 No Community Sans Concert? 62

See Seng Tan

AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area

See Seng Tan

facilitates the formation of East Asia into a fully-fledged community.

Aims of This Study

regional architecture and foundation for an East Asian Community, or

Architecture of this Study

apprehends better the complexity of East Asian regional integration. For

learn to understand the dominant international norms, attempt to per-

The final chapter is by Tang Siew Mun. Mindful of the importance

Regional Institutions and Regionalism in East Asia

In one participant’s words, those institutions “function not only as the

Third, the effectiveness of East Asia’s institutions is inextricably linked

Institutional Congruence or Competition

focus of the ARF on security and that of APEC on economics. Further-

Clearly, the task of developing East Asian regionalism along issue-

Theoretical and Analytical Considerations

being mere “talk shops”. Such socially-based institutions conceiv-

more contractually and sociologically oriented features. As the chapter

tions presently engaged in the process of institutionalization, i.e.

Asia continues to fit within realist predictions, the history of Southeast

Eclecticism and the Concept of Comprehensive

context of attempting to understand the importance of Asia’s institutions,

Non-integration Security community

Political and security integration

Non-integration Security community

Economic integration and elite Level identtity for

Political and security integration Top

Low integration Medium-low Medium-high High integration

Non-integration Theoretically integrated

pathways by which a group of states may evolve from low integration

Realist Realist Liberalist

Communal- Low integration Medium-low Medium-high High integration Future

consequences) is more likely to be dominant whereas at a high level

Greater Asia: Regional Dynamics and

again, political alignments. While all three of regions remain relatively

with the possible affect of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

eration is increasingly common in Southeast Asia. A notable example of

the type of cooperation predicted by realpolitik institutionalism, may

East Asian Regional Institutions

realistic hope of dismantling North Korea’s nuclear facilities . While the

with resistance and caution from some countries.

Regional Security Organizations, Regional

ties for dialogue and exchange of information. Regardless of their effec-

the perspectives held by other countries.

Institutional Complementarity or Competition