Regionalism in Asia as Disguised Multilateralism: A Critical Analysis of the East Asia Summit and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Abstract

Revolving around the concept of ‘Community’ or ‘community’, debate on an Asian region has ostensibly pitted those who proposed an entity limited to East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea and the ten countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN) against those who proposed a much wider region embracing India, North (and, perhaps, South) America, as well as Australasia. Previously these two conceptualisations possessed their eponymous translation in the East Asian Economic Caucus (reincarnated as ASEAN+3) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. However, with the creation in 2005 of the East Asian Summit to include India, Australia and New Zealand and, above all, its 2011 enlargement to include the United States and Russia, the contrast between the two conceptualisations of an Asian region has become confused. In order to explain this development, this article suggests that the language of ‘region’ or ‘community’ is a discursive smokescreen disguising changes in approaches to multilateralism. An examination of the East Asia Summit, contrasting it with another recent regional project, the Trans Pacific Partnership, suggests that the actors involved are seeking to ensure the primacy of individual nation states in intergovernmental multilateral relations.

Keywords:

• multilateralism
• regionalism
• regional integration
• Asian community
• East Asia Summit
• Trans Pacific Partnership

Notes

This article draws on Camroux, “The East Asia Summit”. Thanks to Mark Beeson, Lorenzo Fioramonti, Julie Smith and three anonymous reviewers for suggestions for improvement to earlier drafts. Also, my appreciation to Deborah Elms and John Ravenhill for providing me with access to some of their as yet unpublished work. Research for this article was conducted under the auspices of the project, ‘Mercury: Multilateralism and the EU in the contemporary global order’, funded through the EU FP7 programme (Project ID: SSH-CT-2008-225267).

¹Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter?

²Devare, India and Southeast Asia.

³Acharya, “How Norms Spread”, and Whose Ideas Matter?; Nabers, “Power, Leadership, and Hegemony”.

⁴Jones and Smith, “Constructing Communities”; and Ravenhill, “East Asian Regionalism”, respectively.

⁵For APEC, see Ravenhill, APEC and Pacific Rim Regionalism; and for the Japanese approach: Terada, “The Origins of Japan's APEC Policy”, and “Constructing an ‘East Asian’ Concept”.

⁶For monetary regionalism, see Dieter and Higgott, “Alternative Theories of Economic Regionalism”; for regulatory regionalism, Jayasuriya, “Regulatory Regionalism in Asia-Pacific”; for networked regionalism, Jetschke, “Institutionalizing ASEAN”, and Yeo, “Institutional Regionalism Versus Networked Regionalism”; for mandalic regionalism, Dellios, “Mandalic Regionalism in Asia”; and for strategic regionalism, Gilson, “Strategic Regionalism in East Asia”.

⁷Nair, “Regionalism in the Asia Pacific/East Asia”; Searight, “The United States and Asian Economic Regionalism”; Beeson, “ASEAN Plus three”, respectively.

⁸Ruggie, “Multilateralism: Anatomy of an Institution”, 8–10.

⁹C. Bouchard, and J. Peterson, “Conceptualising Multilateralism, can we all just get Along”, MERCURY E-Paper 1, January 2011, 10, http://www.mercury-fp7.net.

¹⁰Ruggie, “Multilateralism: Anatomy of an Institution”, 12.

¹¹This was indeed the impression this author gleaned during informal conversation with Southeast Asian participants when attending the conference organised by the Australian Foreign and Trade Ministry in Sydney (3–4 December 2009) to promote the idea of an Asia-Pacific community.

¹²Caporaso, “International Relations Theory and Multilateralism”, 61. See Acharya, “How Norms Spread” and Whose Ideas Matter?.

¹³Wu, “Chinese Perspectives on East Asian Community”, 68.

¹⁴Emmerson, Asian Regionalism and US Policy, 2.

¹⁵H. Clinton, “Remarks on Regional Architecture: Principles and Priorities”, Honolulu, 12 January 2010, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/01/135090.htm.

¹⁶Katzenstein, A World of Regions.

¹⁷Kwon and Hong, “Challenges for East Asian Summit” (in Korean); and Malik, “The East Asia Summit”.

¹⁸S. Huang, “Perspectives on the East Asian Summit”. Caijing 148, 12 December 2005 (in Chinese).

¹⁹Soesastro, “East Asia: Many Clubs, Little Progress”, 53.

²⁰Lenihan, “Adding more Seats at the Table”.

²¹Terada, “The Origins of ASEAN+6”.

²²Wu, G. “Multiple Levels of Multilateralism”; Pearson, “Domestic Institutional Constraints”; and Breslin, “Comparative Theory, China”.

²³Beeson, “Hegemonic Transition in East Asia?”; and Pempel, “More Pax, Less Americana in Asia”.

²⁴Chung, “China's Approaches to Regional Multilateralism”.

²⁵Zhang, China and Asian Regionalism.

²⁶Shambaugh, “Coping with a Conflicted China”; Sutter, “Assessing China's Rise”.

²⁷Carlson, “Moving beyond Sovereignty?”.

²⁸Vaughn, East Asian Summit: Issues for Congress; and Nanto, East Asian Regional Architecture, respectively.

²⁹Quoted in Searight, “The United States and Asian Economic Regionalism”, 58.

³⁰US State Department, Leading through Civilian Power, 52.

³¹D. Capie and A. Acharya, “The United States and the East Asia Summit: A New Beginning?”, PacNet Newsletter 64, 14 November 2011, http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-64-united-states-and-east-asia-summit-new-beginning.

³²For unilateralism, see Cumings, “History and Practice of Unilateralism”; for bilateralism, Hemmer and Katzenstein, “Why is there no NATO in Asia?”.

³³Sutter, “Assessing China's Rise”.

³⁴Terada, “Constructing an ‘East Asian’ Concept”.

³⁵Koizumi, Japan and ASEAN in East Asia.

³⁶Terada, “The Origins of ASEAN+6”.

³⁷Sohn, “Japan's New Regionalism”; and Sudo, “Japan's ASEAN Policy”.

³⁸Oga, “Open Regionalism and Regional Governance”.

³⁹Fukushima, “Japan's Perspective on Asian Regionalism”.

⁴⁰Dieter and Higgott, “Alternative Theories of Economic Regionalism”.

⁴¹Kawai and Ganeshan, Asian FTAs, 4.

⁴²Dent, “Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific”; and Ravenhill, “East Asian Regionalism”, respectively.

⁴³Baldwin, “Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks” and Petri, Noodle Bowl or Matrix?, respectively.

⁴⁴Dent, “Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific”.

⁴⁵Bergsten, Pacific Asia and the Asia Pacific; and Barfield, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

⁴⁶Petri et al., The Trans-Pacific Partnership.

⁴⁷Capling and Ravenhill, “Multilateralising Regionalism”.

⁴⁸“TPP Divide not Getting Narrower”, The Nikkei Weekly, 24 October 2011.

⁴⁹Elms, “From the P4 to the TPP”.

⁵⁰Gannon, “Engaging in Asia”, 20.

⁵¹D. Elms, “Reality meets Rhetoric on ‘21^st Century Pact’”, The Straits Times, 24 March 2011; “US, Partners eye TransPacific Trade Deal”, Jakarta Post, 21 May 2011.

⁵²Pempel, “Soft Balancing, Hedging and Institutional Darwinism”.

⁵³N. Okabe, “Time for Japan to Step up to Plate”, The Nikkei Weekly, 21 November 2011.

⁵⁴Phongpaichit, “Who wants an East Asia Community?”.

⁵⁵A. Kizekova, “Russia's Role in EAS: Promoting Inter-Regional Cooperation”, PacNet Newsletter 62, 4 November 2011.

⁵⁶Webber, “Regional Integration that didn’t Happen”.

⁵⁷Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration.

⁵⁸Searight, “The United States and Asian Economic Regionalism”, 59.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Camroux

This article draws on Camroux, “The East Asia Summit”. Thanks to Mark Beeson, Lorenzo Fioramonti, Julie Smith and three anonymous reviewers for suggestions for improvement to earlier drafts. Also, my appreciation to Deborah Elms and John Ravenhill for providing me with access to some of their as yet unpublished work. Research for this article was conducted under the auspices of the project, ‘Mercury: Multilateralism and the EU in the contemporary global order’, funded through the EU FP7 programme (Project ID: SSH-CT-2008-225267).