Toward a New Asia?

Contributed by Agusti Anwar


On 14 December 2005, in Kuala Lumpur, East Asian leaders were having a summit meeting for the first time. This inaugural East Asia summit is certainly high in the regional agenda, being the latest development made by the region.

Attending the meeting were not only the usual ASEAN+3 countries which involve the ten Southeast Asian countries along with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. At this very summit there were also India, Australia and New Zealand.

Many analysts are now challenging their knowledge and wisdom to offer best explanation on this new structure (eg, Tim Shorrock, Why the East Asian Summit matters). Like usual, the pessimists concentrate on the problems; while the optimists tend to overdo. There is no telling which would be the right sensing, since the future is still a foretelling---no certainty.

Surely there are many can be told about this new development. Three of them may be worth underlining. First, this new structure is a way forward for the region in the sense that 16 countries are sitting together and committed to closer cooperation within a new framework. The trend toward more cooperation is strong.

Second, as a corollary, there seems a shared feeling that a progress toward an East Asia community is not so abstract but a possible future---distant, if not near. With all members acceded to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), the East Asia is committed to addressing disputes in peaceful manners. Everyone is aware that the peace approach is the basic for a community.

Third, this summit can also be considered as a take to redefine the 'East Asianness' or perhaps even 'Asianness'. With India involved, almost all 'big' player in the region being included. Concerns of other Asian countries for being outside the circle, for example Pakistan, Russia, or even the US, can always be addressed in the future, if those in concerned so request.

One thing interesting to note that if this structure is really a redefinition of East Asia, there may be a question whether all members of this grouping are eligible for the membership of, say, Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). In respect of ASEM, this process uses in its name the word 'Asia' as the telling regional definition, even though the countries inside are still those of ASEAN+3. India has from quite sometime already requested to become a member, even Australia. With the new East Asia, will this also instruct the inclusion of, at least, India and Australia, in the fold of ASEM?

Of course ASEM has its own mechanism for enlargement, which is very much inclusive for the possibility of membership of all other Asian countries. The membership enlargement within ASEM, based on its Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework (AECF) 2000, mainly only requires individual country application, support from the region where the candidate positioned, Asia or Europe, to be followed by the ASEM leaders' consensus in favour of the application.

If that so, ASEM may also need to enlarge toward more Asian membership. After all, in terms of number, there is a striking imbalance within ASEM, with current partners 25 from Europe and 13 from Asia. Soon, ASEM is also looking at the possible more European members to include Rumania and Bulgaria upon their formal entry into the European Union by January 2007.

The East Asia grouping as just being inaugurated may have a great task ahead. This includes the construct of its future substantive course. It is a truism that what is had since now is still the structure. Taking the lead from the format of ASEAN relations with all dialogue partners, most regional and global issues affecting members can be put in the agenda of the East Asia grouping. This means a strategic, broad-ranging list, from terrorism to disasters or contiguous diseases. All can certainly be tacked in an East Asian-wide effort which will in turn serve as a significant contribution at the global level.

The case is that what is seemed to be the ASEAN way, the existence of a construct is not a finished business, but a process forward. The ASEAN way is always about evolving, and this may also be the way to perceive the just-born East Asia grouping. This prescription is also a telling that ASEAN will also endeavor to the fullest its confirmed role as the driving force of this new framework. After all, the three elements making non ASEAN countries eligible for the East Asia membership are (1) the status of full dialogue partners of ASEAN; (2) the accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC); and (3) have substantive relations with ASEAN. Australia was a reluctant party to the TAC, but due to its higher need to engage the region, accession was opted. This made the exclusion of 'East Asia' to Australia is reasonless.

The question is whether ASEAN can successfully employ its driving role---not in the definition as a driver or chauffer while the 'real players' are sitting in the back seat, instructing where to go. With China and India in the back seat, a combined sized of 2.3 billion, and still plus other important regional players, the way the actual play for ASEAN as the driver can be overwhelming. It is true that ASEAN is trying so much to become the soft pole en-massing regional powers to come together. But the 'event organizer' is not equal the 'host'. This is worth pondering.

Congratulation for the establishment of the new East Asia framework