ASEAN AND THE REGIONAL DYNAMIC OF NORTHEAST ASIA FINAL PAPER

Regionalism in Northeast Asia:
Realists View on Regionalism in the Accession of China, Japan, and South Korea to ASEAN+3

Erika 0706291243 International Relations Department Academic Year 2009/2010

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA 2009

Page | 1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background Northeast Asia is a complex region. Despite the fact that it only contains four member countries (People‟s Republic of China, Japan, North Korea, and South Korea), to create a form of regionalism in Northeast Asia is indeed a difficult task. The reason why it is so hard to bind all those countries together in a form of regional institution is because those four countries still have too many differences that will hamper the regionalisation process among them. Among those differences exist, the historical background and the differences in each countries‟ political system are deemed to be the main issues that prevent Northeast Asian countries to take further step in regionalisation process. In his book titled “Northeast Asia‟s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the Shadow of Globalization”, Gilbert Rozman stated a few constraining factors to the emergence of Northeast Asian regionalism.1 One of the factor is the modernization that happened among them. The development instability that emerges as a consequence of modernization creates a resistent of openness among Northeast Asian countries, while this openness is indeed crucial to create a regionalism. Modernization and globalization increase the reluctancy of Northeast Asian countries to open itself in an international arena. Therefore, the Northeast Asian countries prefer to execute protectionism instead of to bind itself together in a form of regional institution. The second factor that hamper the emergence of regionalism in Northeast Asian region is the historical background which creates abhorrence between two big countries in Northeast Asia, Japan and China. The bad relations between Japan and China is started from the World War II era, when the Japanese army attacked and killed Chinese people atrociously. At that time, Hirohito who acted as Japan‟s leader, ordered Japanese army to strike and to prevail China. The Japanese, at that time, called Chinese people as “Chancorro” (which
1

Gilbert Rozman, Northeast Asia’s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the Shadow of Globalisation. (United States: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Page | 2

means a contemptible race, much lower than human race), and because Japanese army considered Chinese as a despicable creature, they acted like they get permission to assail Chinese people viciously. Plundering, raping, murder, and much other criminal actions occurred throughout China. All those actions had a common goal: to create the Emperor of Japan in China.2 This bad historical background creates a hatred among Chinese people towards Japanese. As we stated previously, bad historical background between China and Japan is deemed to be the main constraining factor which hamper the regionalisation process in Northeast Asia region. Without a reconciliation in China and Japan‟s relations, the regionalism in Northeast Asia is still like a castle in the sky. Another constraining factors that also hampers the creation of regionalism in Northeast Asia region is the lack of willingness among Northeast Asian countries to negotiate and to make a cooperation between and among them.3 This is proved by the small number of cooperation that emerges among countries in Northeast Asia region; and if the cooperation does exist, it always comes with the intervention of another countries outside Northeast Asian countries. Furthermore, the cooperation that involved Northeast Asian countries oftenly be terminated due to the the lack of intention among them. For example, Japan and South Korea once had made a cooperation agreement, shown by the visit of South Korea President Kim Dae Jung in Tokyo on October 1998.4 This appointment is in fact a good step towards cooperation between Japan and South Korea. Yet after this appointment, both Japan and South Korea had not made any further steps to maintain the relationship, so the negotiation between them is then stalled. On the contrary, China and Japan had not made any significant cooperation before. Although there are many constraining factors in creating a regionalism in Northeast Asia region, admitedly Northeast Asia is now moving towards the creation of regionalism among them. This is proved by the willingness of China, Japan, and South Korea to join the ASEAN+3. They have decided to sit together in a forum, leaving all the differences and hatred behind, to create solutions as well as decision in a form of cooperation throughout
2 3 4

The writer gets this data from a movie titled “Horror in the East”, directed by Edward Herrmann. Gilbert Rozman, loc.cit. John Ravenhill, East Asian Regionalism, Much Ado About Nothing. (Canberra: Australian National University, Department of International Relations, 2008), p. 22.
Page | 3

ASEAN+3. This paper will then try to analyze the reason behind China, Japan, and South Korea‟s intention to join ASEAN+3 as a form of regionalism in Northeast Asia region.

1.2. Research Question This paper will try to answer this specific question : Why China, Japan, and South Korea join the ASEAN+3, based on Realist point of view in seeing the regionalism? To answer this question, this paper will give a brief description about ASEAN+3 itself, and then analyze the motive behind the enrollment of Japan, China, and South Korea in ASEAN+3.

1.3. Framework of Thinking

1.3.1. The Definition of Region In a framework of International Politics and Economy theory, a region is not only defined as countries who have the same geographic position, but also defined as how the actors in international politics interpret the meaning of the region itself.5 While regions have been typically defined as geographically proximate and interdependent states and regionalism as attempts at formal coopera-tion between such states,6 it is evident that for many, these definitions are today too narrow.7 For example some would argue, following Bruce Russett and others, that geographical criteria are too limiting in an increasingly interdependent and globalized world.8 Therefore, regionalism is not just about geographic concept, but also about a dynamic process which include economic, politic, and social cultural matters.9. The region as a social system implies ever widening trans-local relations, in which the constituent units are

5

6 7

8

9

Andrew Hurrell, “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”, in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell (eds.), Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 41. Joseph Nye (ed.), International Regionalism. (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1968), p. xii. Louise Fawcett, Regionalism in World Politics: Past and Present. http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/ documents/phd_school/6th_phd_school/Proffesors_papers/Fawcett1.pdf, accessed on Mei 7, 2009,08.38 PM. Bruce M. Russett, International Regions and the International System: A Study in Political Ecology. (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1967). Yeo Lay Hwee, Realism and Reactive Regionalism: Where Is East Asian Regionalism Heading? http://revistas.ucm.es/cps/16962206/articulos/UNIS0505230008A.pdf, accesed on Mei 7, 2009, 09.07 PM.
Page | 4

dependent on each other, as well as on the overall stability of the system.10 The region as international society is characterized by norms and rules which increase the level of predictability in the system. Regions can be ordered in the world system hierarchy. Three structurally different types of regions can be distinguished: core regions, peripheral regions and, between them, intermediate regions.11 The regions are distinguished, first, by their relative degree of economic dynamism and, second, by their relative political stability, and the dividing separating line may run through existing states. The borderlines are impermanent. Rather, one could think of the hierarchical structure as consisting of zones which the regions enter or leave depending on their economic position and political stability, as well as their level of regionness. This means that the regions may be differently situated and defined at different occasions, or at different times in world history. The level of regionness can purposively be changed.12

1.3.2. The Definition of Regionalism Regionalism in International Politics and Economy (IPE) is defined as the condition by which group of nation-states, usually in the same geographical region, agree to cooperate and share responsibility to achieve common goals.13 Regionalism itself takes as many forms in IPE as there are possible shared goals among nation-states; for example there are regional environmental agreements, regional economic development programs, regional scientific and health regimes, and regional security arrangements. Regionalism is a logical response to problems that are too big for one state to solve by itself or where the actions of one country cause effects in another. 14 Ernst B. Haas defined regionalism as follows: „regional cooperation is a vague term covering any interstate activity with less than universal participation designed to meet commonly experienced need‟.15 Andrew Axline also asserted that „regional cooperation can only be understood from the perspective of the national
10

11 12 13

14 15

Björn Hettne, Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism. http://www.iei.liu.se/content/1/c4/36/46/autumn% 202005/h05%/20-%20NPE_Hettne_3.pdf, accessed on Mei 6, 2009, 08.45 AM. Björn Hettne, loc.cit. Ibid. David N. Balaam and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005), p. 242. Ibid, p.243. Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces (Stanford University Press, 1958), p.16.
Page | 5

interests of the individual member states, and that the politics of regional negotiations will involve accommodating these interests for all partners‟.16 There are two kinds of regionalism, the old regionalism and the new regionalism. The old regionalism, developed in 1930s, is a regionalisation process that engage countries in the same geographic area which lead to the regional integration as its end goal. On the other hand, the new regionalism, developed in 1990s, not only engage countries in the same geographic position and does not aim to create a regional integration. 17. The new regionalism was „open regionalism‟, which emphasized that the integration project should be market-driven and outward-looking, should avoid high levels of protection and should form part of the ongoing globalization and internationalization process of the world political economy.18 Professor Björn Hettne from the University of Gothenburg defines the new regionalism as a multidimensional process of regional integration which includes economic, political, social, and cultural aspects.19 According to Hettne, regional integration is a package rather than a single policy, whether concerned with economics or foreign policy. Another difference with the old regionalism, according to Hettne, is that the new regionalism is spontaneous and from below (firm, market, and consumer driven), whereas the old type was imposed from above (bureaucratically flat driven) and was therefore more limited and more prone to failure of the kind that grand designs invariably suffer.
20

Finally, Caros Braga21

points to one key feature of the new regionalism: it underlines non-exclusivity, or more accurately, inclusivity, as opposed to a regionalism which once used to be defines in terms mainly of which barriers members of a regional group could erect to thwart non-members, and how high there barriers were to be. Regionalism and regionalization are two more different concepts, and much effort
16

17 18

19

20

21

W. Andrew Axline (ed.), “Cross-Regional Comparisons and The Theory of Regional Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, the Caribbean, South East Asia and the South Pacific”, in W. Andrew Axline (ed.), The Political Economy of Regional Cooperation: Comparative Case Studies (Pinter,1994), p. 217. Yeo Lay Hwee, loc.cit. Kym Anderson & Richard Blackhurst (eds), Regional Integration and the Global Trading System (Harvester: Wheatsheaf, 1993); Jaime de Melo & Arvind Panagariya (eds), New Dimensions in Regional Integration (Cambridge University Press, 1993); and Vincent Cable & David Henderson (eds), Trade Blocs? The Future of Regional Integration. (Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1994). Björn Hettne and A. Inotai, “The New Regionalism Implications for Global Development and International Security”, (Helsinki: UNU, 1994). Robert Bouzas, Regionalism and the Global Economy, The Case of Latin America and the Caribbean, (Netherlands: Forum on Debt and Development, 1995), p.13. Carlos Braga, “The New Regionalism and Its Consequences”, World Bank (IED), (Washington DC, 1994).
Page | 6

has been devoted to the distinction between them. Regionalism refers to a tendency and a political commitment to organize the world in terms of regions; more narrowly, the concept refers to a specific regional project.22 In some definitions the actors behind this political commitment are states; in other definitions the actors are not confined to states. According to Anthony Payne and Andrew Gamble, „regionalism is a state-led or states-led project designed to reorganize a particular regional space along defined economic and political lines‟.23

Andrew Hurrell said, regionalism could be used to tackle the bad effect of globalization. The globalization itself, if not handled carefully, will damage the national politic instrument. The growing globalisation, therefore, creates urgency to make a collective arrangement, which will be implemented easily with countries that have a similar historical background, culture and values, and similar political, security, and economy interest. 24 Therefore, the most important element in creating a regionalism is the similar identity (history, culture, value), and the similar interest.

1.3.3. Realist View on Regionalism Responding to the regionalism issue, Realism, as the oldest paradigm in International Relations study, is rather skeptical in looking a regional cooperation. For Realist, cooperation is not so important in managing relations between countries in the world, therefore it tends to ignore cooperation in international relations. Although it tends to see cooperation as something useless, that does not mean the Realist negates the probability of creating regional cooperation in a form of regionalism. Realist argue, regionalism is likely to happen if it is supported by certain motives of its member countries. Realist thinks that the preference of a country to join a regionalism is depended on the position of that country in the international distribution of power25, which then defines the motives of countries in joining a regional cooperation. Realist also stresses the national interest factor, which defines
22 23

Björn Hettne, loc.cit. Andrew Payne and Andrew Gamble, “Introduction: the Political Economy of Regionalism and World Order”, in Andrew Gamble and Anthony Payne (eds.), Regionalism and World Order (Macmillan, 1996), p. 2. 24 Andrew Hurrell, loc.cit., p. 55-58. 25 Young Jong Choi and James A. Caporaso, “Comparative Regional Integration”, in Walter Carlsnaes et.all (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, (London: Sage Publications, 2002), p. 486.
Page | 7

state activity in Realist‟s point of view. Although countries decide to cooperate in a form of regionalism, that does not mean states join the regionalism whole-heartedly; there must be certain motives that drive the willingness of countries to join regionalism, the motives that are merely related to their national interest. Realist view on regionalism is also presented by Joseph Grieco, with its voice opportunity thesis. In this thesis, Grieco stated that countries tend to find ways to increase their power in international arena by bonding theirselves together with other powerful countries in a form of international institution and international policy. 26 With their attachments in international institutions, countries are trying to increase their role, as well as trying to reduce any possible obstacles that could harm their national interest. Realist also believes that underlying power relationship are evident in a regionalism and that the more powerful states gain more from regional institution than the less powerful. Although regionalism gives smaller members access to larger members‟ market, the larger members demand side payments in return.27

26 27

Ibid, p. 487. Theodore H. Cohn. Global Political Economy, Theory and Practice. (New York: Pearson Education, 2008), p. 270.
Page | 8

CHAPTER II CONTENT

2.1. ASEAN+3 as a Starting Point to Create Regionalism in Northeast Asia Region Unlike other Southeast Asian countries who intensely and voluntarily cooperate in a form of ASEAN as a regional organization, Northeast Asian countries has so far never made any significant regional institution. China, Japan, and South Korea seem to prefer joining other organization made by other region, like what happened in APEC, ASEAN, ASEAN+3, and so on. The latter form, ASEAN+3 is deemed to be the most potential organization to create regionalism in Northeast Asia in the future.28 ASEAN+3 itself is a form of regional institution that is created as a reaction towards Asian Crisis in 1997-1998. Many experts said, the 1997/8 Asian Crisis acted like a catalyst for the recent enhancement of regional cooperation in Asia29, because this crisis created a greater awareness of the region‟s shared interest and vulnerabilities. Both South and Northeast Asian countries realized that they are indeed mutually dependent. The interdependency among Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian countries then creates an urgency to form a regional cooperation that binds them altogether. Asian Crisis makes East Asian countries realized that they cannot rely completely on present organization existed, East Asian should form a new organization to prevent another crisis that might happened in the future.30 In reality, the cooperation between ASEAN countries and Northeast Asian countries has started since 1997, when there is a meeting between 10 leaders of ASEAN with the leaders of China, Japan, and South Korea in Manila, Philipphine. This meeting is called as the Manila Framework. In Manila Framework, the three Northeast Asian countries show their willingness to put aside any differences among them, to sit together and concentrate on thinking the solution to overcome the crisis that happened at that time.
28 29

30

Yeo Lay Hwee, loc.cit. Giovanni Capannelli, ASEAN Regionalism: How Does It Compare to Europe’s? http://www.eastasia forum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/, accessed on May 7, 2009, 09.14 PM. Stuart Harris, The Regional Response in Asia-Pacific and its Global Implications, paper presented on 3rd Annual Conference di University of Warwick, September 16-18, 1999.
Page | 9

Moreover, the Asian Crisis also reflects the failure of United States of America (US) as a country that supposedly could guarantee the stability of international financial system. The failure of International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help Asian countries in overcoming the crisis creates a disappointment throughout Asian region. Due to the perceived inadequate response by multilateral institutions, especially the IMF, Japan called for the creation of Asian Monetary Fund, an institution to control and to supervise Asian monetary condition because IMF is no longer fit for Asian countries.31 After a watering down of initial proposals, in 2000 the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) established swap arrangements which would provide a regional cushion to countries in a new crisis.32 The cooperation between South and Northeast Asian countries in monetary and financial area is deemed to be the biggest progress in the creation of ASEAN+3,33 which will boost further cooperation in other areas later. In ASEAN 13th Annual Meeting in Singapore, the 13 countries (10 ASEAN countries plus Japan, China, and South Korea) have agreed to identify many forms of comprehensive partnership by creating four main agendas. First, politics and security partnership, based on the need to maintain stability and peace to prevent terrorism in the region. Second, economic and financial partnership. In trade and investment area, ASEAN+3 seek to implement the reduction and the elimination of tariff, which whill increase the trade flow and investment throughout the region. Third, the partnership on energy, climate change and sustainable development. Fourth, partnership on social cultural matters, and fifth, mechanism of institutional support among ASEAN+3 members. Most of Asian Pacific academist, like Drysdale, Elek and Soesastro stated that cooperation between ASEAN countries and the three Northeast Asian countries is implemented based on three basic principle: opennes, equality, and development. 34 The principle of openness demands transparency and non-dicriminatory acts in any economic as well as trade policy among ASEAN+3 members. On the other hand, the principle of equality means that any activities must be put into practice to give mutual benefits to all of ASEAN+3
31

32

33 34

Naoko Munakata, Transforming East Asia, the Evolution of Regional Economic Integration. (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006), p. 102. Richard Pomfret, Asian Regionalism: Threat to the WTO Based Trading System or Paper Tiger. http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/309, accessed on May 7, 2009, 09.10 PM. Naoko Munakata, op.cit., p. 106. Yeo Lay Hwee, loc.cit.
Page | 10

members, by looking on economic and political structure of each country. Whilst, on the principle of development, ASEAN+3 countries will develop gradually altogether to create an economic partnership based on voluntary participation and consensus building. 35 The partnership, moreover, will involve any forms of information exchange, policy dialogue, regional liquidity arrangement, and decision making process in certain areas like the coordination of exchange rate value.36

2.2. China, Japan, and South Korea’s Interest in Joining ASEAN+3 In previous section, this paper has explained the main background of China, Japan, and South Korea to join ASEAN+3, which associated with the Asian Crisis that happened in 1997-1998. Nevertheless, irrefutably, China, Japan, and South Korea have their own motives. This section will then explain the interest of each Northeast Asian countries in joining ASEAN+3.

2.2.1. Japan’s Interest in Joining ASEAN+3 As for Japan, the main motives behind its membership in ASEAN+3 is particularly to increase its own role in Southeast Asian region due to the increasing role of China as its main enemy. The massive economic growth of China has emerged anxiety and fright in Japan, Japan afraids this economic power of China will make China dominate Asia region, or even worse, dominate the world. This has raised Japan‟s concern to revitalize its economy, to fight China‟s economy in order to maintain its strong position in Southeast Asia region. Japan‟s concern to revitalize its economy, as well as to increase its role in Southeast Asia region, drives Japan to join ASEAN+3. By joining ASEAN+3, Japan thinks that China‟s action could be controlled easily and its policy as well as its behavior could also be more easily to predict.37 Japan realizes that it needs to be economically stronger if it is going to be able to
35

36

37

Peter Drysdale, et.all, “Open Regionalism: The Nature of Asia Pacific Integration,” in Peter Drysdale and David Vines (eds.), Europe, East Asia and APEC. (Australia: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 105-106. Masahiro Kawai, Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation in East Asia, paper presented on Experts‟ Seminar on the Impact and Coherence of OECD Country Policies on Asian Developing Economies on June 10-11, 2004, Paris. Naoko Munakata, loc.cit., p. 13.
Page | 11

play a more important role in East Asia. The development of the North Korean nuclear weapons program and the increase in Chinese defense expenditures—the transparency of which is doubted—have placed Japan in a quandary. Japan is committed to the idea of regional cooperation and community building as ASEAN+3 because it views it as a way to overcome the challenges posed by China. In the meantime, despite the challenges it faces, Japan is still the region‟s largest economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) and is very important to the region in terms of trade, investment, finance, and technology.38 As long as it gets its policies right, it will remain one of the most important members of the region. Furthermore, another Japan‟s motives in joining ASEAN+3 is because Japan is using its Asian production alliance in part as a platform from which to continue supplying high-technology products to Western markets.39 So by joining ASEAN+3, Japan tries to increase its power in the region by increasing role in the making of ASEAN+3 and also by maintaining its economy power, and also it tries to preserve its economy production to Western states by reckoning on its production in Asian markets.

2.2.2. China’s Interest In Joining ASEAN+3 On the other hand, China whose economy has grown rapidly, also has its own consideration in joining ASEAN+3, which is to secure its international environment so that China could focus more to develop its domestic economy. By joining ASEAN+3, China expects to be more accepted by its neighbour countries. The possible attack from its neighbours could then be prevented, thus China could concentrate more on developing its domestic power, while also making a coalition with fellow neighbour countries in both Southeast and Northeast Asia region to fight former superpower country, United States of America.40 China also has the intention to preserve its power both in South and Northeast Asian region. It has been commonly known that China has a big economy power. The rise of China itself has been unprecedented in human history, as its economy has grown by 9.5 percent
38

39

40

Jusuf Wanandi, "East Asian Regionalism and Global Governance," in Jusuf Wanandi and Tadashi Yamamoto (eds.), East Asia at a Crossroads. (Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2008), p. 19-37. Walter Hatch and Kozo Yamamura, Asia in Japan’s Embrace: Building A Regional Production Alliance. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 36. Naoko Munakata, loc.cit., p.13.
Page | 12

annually for the last 25 years.41 Since 1978, China‟s GDP per capita has risen relative to that of the world leader, the United States, in almost exactly the same way that Japan‟s rose between 1950 and 1973, Taiwan‟s rose between 1958 and the late 1980s, and South Korea‟s rose between 1962 and the early 1990s. China‟s real income per capita has increased by 300 percent over this period. For China, these are still the early days of the catching-up process. So China need not to worry about its economy power, especially both in North and Southeast Asia region in which all countries in it do not have as big economy power as China has. Yet, if we talk about the political power, then it is a different matter. China‟s political power in South and Northeast Asia region remains relatively low, comparing to Japan‟s. Since the Asian Crisis, Japan has shown to be the leader of Asian countries, with its Asian Monetary Fund proposal. Although that particular proposal has been rejected by US and by China itself, Japan remains strong in these two regions. This condition then drives China to also try to maintain its political power by joining ASEAN+3. China hopes, by joining ASEAN+3, it could maintain its strong economy as well as political power in North and Southeast Asia region.

2.2.3. South Korea’s Intention in Joining ASEAN+3 Whilst the interest of China and Japan to join ASEAN+3 is mainly about how to fight and to prevent the emergence of threat from other countries, the third Northeast Asian country, South Korea, have a little more different interest. As a country with less military power and lower economy growth than its two other neighbours, the main interest of South Korea to join ASEAN+3 is nonetheless to increase its bargaining position in international arena. South Korea expects, its membership in ASEAN+3 will help it to have, at least, the same position as other major powers—US, China, and Japan.42 By joining ASEAN+3, South Korea wishes to participate more in its region economic growth, thus South Korea could (also) be the major power in East Asia region. This is merely related to the argument that the smaller countries wanted international recognition as mature trading partners, or as specially

41 42

Jusuf Wanandi, loc.cit. Ibid, p. 14.
Page | 13

favoured in a „special relationship‟.43 This argument clearly defines the interest of South Korea to join ASEAN+3. Along with this intention to have an increased bargaining position, South Korea also expects to experience an increasing economy cooperation with other ASEAN+3 countries, so that South Korea could also augment its economy capabilities.

2.4. The Analysis of Realist’s View on Regionalism in the Reason of China, Japan, and South Korea in Joining ASEAN+3 Although China, Japan and South Korea have many differences and many restraining factors that could decelerate regionalism in Northeast Asia region; China, Japan, and South Korea remain to be able to overcome those differences to then be blended and united in ASEAN+3. The growing modernization that happened throughout the region makes Northeast Asian countries to close and to protect theirselves from the world. The bad historical background between China and Japan as two major powers in Northeast Asia region also makes many scholars think that regionalism in Northeast Asia region is unlikely to happen. This is also be worsened by the lack of willingness among each of Northeast Asian countries to cooperate with each other, due to the many differences within. But all of those things are then changed after the Asian Crisis that hit and destroy the economy and financial condition of China, Japan, and South Korea. The crisis that happened in 1997-1998 has increased awareness and understanding among China, Japan, and South Korea that the time for cooperation has arrived; it is the time for them to put aside all the differences, to combine power together to overcome the present crisis and to tackle the future crisis. However, behind the motives to overcome the present crisis and to unite power altogether; China, Japan, and South Korea each have its own agenda and motives in joining ASEAN+3. Japan, for instance, agree to join ASEAN+3 to preclude China for predominating regional and global economy. Admittedly, the increasing economy of China has created awareness and anxiety in Japan, and to limit China‟s deed, Japan joins ASEN+3. This motive of Japan in joining ASEAN+3 reflects the Realist view on Regionalism, that the preference of a country to cooperate in regional institution is depended on the country‟s position in

43

Sheila Page, Regionalism Among Developing Countries. (London: Macmillan Press, 2000), p. 17.
Page | 14

international arena. Japan, in this case, has experienced that their position as the number one power in Asia declines, along with the emergence of China as the new power not only in Asia, but also in the world. Japan does not want its position in Asia being defeated by China, therefore Japan joins ASEAN+3 and therefore, it agrees to invite China in ASEAN+3, so that Japan could control and could predict China‟s behavior. On the other hand, China, who experiences the increasing power in Asia, also shows its willingness to join ASEAN+3. This is a bit perplexing, because without joining ASEAN+3, China has been a big power in both North and Southeast Asia region. Moreover, it also has a bad historical background with Japan. Yet that bad historical background is put asided, China decides to join ASEAN+3 along with Japan and South Korea to fulfill its national interest, which is to increase its domestic economy growth. By joining ASEAN+3, China tries to build a good relations with ASEAN+3 members; so in the future, China does not have to be afraid of threats coming from the neighbour countries, and therefore China could concentrate more on its domestic development. China‟s motive of joining ASEAN+3 also reflects Realists‟ view of Regionalism, who sees Regionalism as a means to fulfill each country‟s national interest, and who sees regionalism as a condition in which every members still holds its own national interest as its main objective. The motive of the third country, South Korea, also reflects Realist view on Regionalism in looking ASEAN+3 phenomenon. South Korea‟s motives reflects the voice opportunity thesis as mentioned previously in the framework of thinking section. By joining ASEAN+3, South Korea tries to increase its bargaining position in the international arena. South Korea realizes that it does not have as much power as Japan and China, therefore it joins ASEAN+3 so that it could, at least, has the same bargaining position as other big countries that also joins ASEAN+3.

Page | 15

CHAPTER III CONCLUSION

The case of why China, Japan, and South Korea unites in a regionalism in a form of ASEAN+3 is indeed a unique case. While these three countries have countless differences and bad relations to each other, they are willing to put aside their differences, to be united and to cooperate in a form of ASEAN+3. The willingness of China, Japan, and South Korea nonetheless could not be separated from each own country‟s intention to overcome the Asian Crisis that happened at that time. All of the three countries realized that the present international system is no longer fits their need, and that actually there are an interdependence among them. This interdependence then drives these three countries to unite, in order to solve the crisis and to prevent the future crisis together. However, when China, Japan and South Korea decide to join the ASEAN+3, these three countries actually have their own motives. The motives of China, Japan, and South Korea to join ASEAN+3 reflects the view of Realist on regionalism. Although Realist tends to be skeptical to cooperation, Realist sees regionalism as an instrument to obtain national interest (like what happened with China‟s motive in joining ASEAN+3), as a way to prevent and to control potential enemy (Japan‟s motive in joining ASEAN+3), and as an instrument to increase bargaining position like stated in voice of opportunity thesis (South Korea‟s motive in joining ASEAN+3). Therefore, the case of China, Japan, and South Korea‟s enrollment in ASEAN+3 provides a good example to prove the fidelity of Realist view on regionalism. The role of national interest element in predicting state‟s behavior, along with the security dilemma that emerges from potential enemy, as well as the necessity to increase bargaining position in international arena give a broader image to explain the reason why China, Japan, and South Korea decide to develop a regionalism in a form of ASEAN+3.

Page | 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reference from Book: Rozman, Gilbert. 2004. Northeast Asia’s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the Shadow of Globalisation. United States: Cambridge University Press. Ravenhill, John. 2008. East Asian Regionalism, Much Ado About Nothing. Canberra: Australian National University, Department of International Relations. Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”, in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell (eds.), Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. New York: Oxford University Press. Nye, Joseph (ed.). 1968. International Regionalism. Boston: Little Brown and Co. Russett, Bruce M. 1967. International Regions and the International System: A Study in Political Ecology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. 2005. Introduction to International Political Economy. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Haas, Ernst B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces. Stanford University Press. Axline, W. Andrew (ed.). 1994. “Cross-Regional Comparisons and The Theory of Regional Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, the Caribbean, South East Asia and the South Pacific”, in W. Andrew Axline (ed.), The Political Economy of Regional Cooperation: Comparative Case Studies. Pinter Publication. Anderson, Kym, and Richard Blackhurst (eds.). 1993. Regional Integration and the Global Trading System. Harvester: Wheatsheaf. de Melo, Jaime, and Arvind Panagariya (eds.). 1993. New Dimensions in Regional Integration. Cambridge University Press. Cable, Vincent, and David Henderson (eds.). 1994. Trade Blocs? The Future of Regional Integration. Royal Institute of International Affairs. Hettne, Björn, and A. Inotai. 1994. The New Regionalism Implications for Global Development and International Security. Helsinki: UNU. Bouzas, Robert. 1995. Regionalism and the Global Economy, The Case of Latin America and the Caribbean. Netherlands: Forum on Debt and Development.
Page | 17

Braga, Carlos. 1994. “The New Regionalism and Its Consequences” in World Bank (IED). Washington DC. Payne, Andrew, and Andrew Gamble. 1996. “Introduction: the Political Economy of Regionalism and World Order”, in Andrew Gamble and Anthony Payne (eds.), Regionalism and World Order. Macmillan, 1996. Choi, Young Jong, and James A. Caporaso. 2002. “Comparative Regional Integration”, in Walter Carlsnaes et.all (eds.), Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications. Cohn, Theodore H. 2008. Global Political Economy, Theory and Practice. New York: Pearson Education. Munakata, Naoko. 2006. Transforming East Asia, the Evolution of Regional Economic Integration. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Drysdale, Peter, et.all. 1998. “Open Regionalism: The Nature of Asia Pacific Integration,” in Peter Drysdale and David Vines (eds.), Europe, East Asia and APEC. Australia: Cambridge University Press. Wanandi, Jusuf. 2008. "East Asian Regionalism and Global Governance," in Jusuf Wanandi and Tadashi Yamamoto (eds.), East Asia at a Crossroads. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. Hatch, Walter, and Kozo Yamamura. 1996. Asia in Japan’s Embrace: Building A Regional Production Alliance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Page, Sheila. 2000. Regionalism Among Developing Countries. London: Macmillan Press,.

Reference from Journal: Fawcett, Louise. Regionalism in World Politics: Past and Present. http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/ documents/phd_school/6th_phd_school/Proffesors_papers/Fawcett1.pdf Hwee, Yeo Lay. Realism and Reactive Regionalism: Where Is East Asian Regionalism Heading? http://revistas.ucm.es/cps/16962206/articulos/UNIS0505230008A.pdf Hettne, Björn. Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism. http://www.iei.liu.se/content/1/c4/36/ 46/autumn%202005/h05%/20-%20NPE_Hettne_3.pdf

Reference from Presentation Paper: Harris, Stuart. 1999. The Regional Response in Asia-Pacific and its Global Implications,
Page | 18

paper presented on 3rd Annual Conference di University of Warwick, September 16-18, 1999. Kawai, Masahiro. Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation in East Asia, paper presented on Experts‟ Seminar on the Impact and Coherence of OECD Country Policies on Asian Developing Economies on June 10-11, 2004, Paris.

Reference from Internet: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europe/ http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/309

Page | 19