I am optimistic about an East Asia Community

Comments on Joel Rathus “East Asia Community: Little chance of a breakthrough at the Trilateral Summit”, 11/10/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/11/east-asia-community-little-chance-of-a-breakthrough-at-the-trilateral-summit/comment-page-1/#comment-66931

From the article one gets a sense that although the processes are slow, it is progressing and it will not be surprising that East Asia Community comes to shape in the not too distant future, although the author appears to be pessimistic and dismissive.

Let's look at the three reasons Rathus used for the pessimism.

"Firstly, at the global level, movement towards an EAC must be understood as game played between the great powers, China and the US. Japan and Korea are better understood as middle powers, allied with the US but with an option to exit in favour of a China-led regional order under the EAC. With the US demonstrating a greater desire to take Asia seriously and on its own terms (signing of the TAC), it seems unlikely that Japan and Korea will do any more than explore with China the ‘exit’ option."

It is noted that China is half of the G2 and is more willing to endorse the EAC. So the picture is really different from what Rathus sees.

"Secondly, at the regional level, the Trilateral Summit looks inward, rather than outward, focusing on coordination and cooperation amongst themselves rather than joint-leadership of a wider East Asia, and, even here, successes have been shallow. Agreements reached at the Summit thus far have been in the fields of environmental protection, health and cultural exchange – i.e. of a ‘low-hanging fruit’ variety. Whereas agreement on substantive matters such as deeper economic integration has so far been elusive, with the three-party Free Trade Agreement proposed, studied (then studied again) but resulting in no further action."

It is a natural process for the big three among the potential EAC members to be in sync themselves before they can launch a bigger community, isn't it? That is not necessarily "inward looking". So the implications are also different from what Rathus got.

"Thirdly, domestic forces within at least two of the three parties still conspire against a ‘European moment in East Asia’."

Let's talk about Japan first. Rathus sees A FTA with China may present a problem at the moment. But the question is that is a Japan-China FTA a precondition for an EAC? It is likely to be not. Second, an EAC is broader than the three themselves, and EAC integration does not necessarily mean an immediate FTA. So there is no implication of FTA for the EAC, at least at the moment if that is what Rathus is concerned with. What Rathus sees as obstacles is in fact no obstacle at all.

Now let's turn to Korea, the other member that Rathus mention. Rathus says: "In fact, despite its own rhetoric, Korea’s position is very similar to Japan – regional community is a limited interest at best." We have shown that it is not a problem for Japan, so naturally it will not be a problem for Korea either.

To conclude, the same facts, there are quite different implications that can be drawn. I have derived quite different implications based on Rathus' argued reasons.I won't cast a judgement whose are correct, for now.