AS 230

Seminar in Northeast Asia

Regionalis
RANIEL R. BILLONES

m
When you hear the word "regionalism”,
what comes to your mind?
Northeast Asian Regional
Integration and the East
Asian Community
Making Process

Yilmaz and Lyu (2020)

 East Asia's regional growth has a lengthy but varied
history. It arose during the early years of the Cold War
and was influenced by ideological conflict as well as a
diverse range of regional and international concerns.
Southeast Asia is seen as more
effective in terms of the
completeness, dynamism, and
stability of its regional
community-building process,
which involves economics,
politics, and security to different
degrees.
-helmsman of East Asian
regionalism under the
institutional framework of the
Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) (Leifer 1994)
Northeast Asia is seen as the
weaker of the two in
practically every area of
regional integration, including
institutional reforms, long-
term communication, and
norm-making capacity.
(Aminian and Calderon 2010)
 Economic and Political Integration in Northeast Asia
NEA regionalism has already been strongest among informal areas
of economic and social contact, as evidenced by the growth of
regional trade (Henderson and Nadvi 2011) and the migration of
capital and investment from rich to developing countries over the
postwar period (Dent 2013).

In areas of politics and security which entail signing binding

treaties, forming official agreements, and joining informal
institutions, NEA regionalism is weaker or more constrained (Moon
2011; Peng 2002)
Context of Reluctant Regionalism in NEA
Historically, three broad-defined factors have been crucial in terms of their
movement, trajectory, and structure.

DOMESTIC PRESENCE OF
REGIONAL
VARIABLES NONREGIONAL
The outcome of major historical DYNAMICS
traumas and results in persistent NEA’s interaction with ACTORS
Heavily securitized
negative perceptions,
sovereignty-related sensitivities, SEA appears to both presence of the United
and disparate levels of economic reinforce cooperation States
development
 Some contend that the US security system offers “an effective
security umbrella for the region, preventing Soviet and Chinese
expansion, and allaying regional fears of resurgent Japanese
aggression” (Searight 2011, 93)

Opponents argue that, despite its good benefits, "US-centered

economic and security bilateralism has also hampered
movements of regional peace and collaboration" (Searight 2011,
93).
 Three main NEA states have also become one of the world's
top trading regions, increasing their proportion of global commerce
in contrast to other economic zones like as ASEAN, the United
States-Canada-Mexico (US-CA-MX), and the EU28.
Politics tends to be a side
issue both bilateral and
trilateral dialogues:
economy dominates
politics, and sensitive
matters may go
unmentioned in discussions
and agreements.
 The China-Japan-South Korea trilateral summit is a case in point. The summit, which began in 2008 as a
platform independent of the ASEAN Plus 3, was eventually changed into a more official institution under the
Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (TCS) in 2011.
Geopolitical Developments and Regionalism in NEA

The Northeast Asian regional order still remains uncertain,

complex, and contested (Kim 2016; Webber 2010)
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was the standard-
bearer of East Asian multilateralism until the Asian Financial Crisis
(AFC) in 1997 revealed that a thoroughly liberalized economic
environment created and even worsened vulnerabilities in times of
crisis (Das, 2004)

Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), Asian Bond Market Initiative (ABMI) and the Chiang Mai Initiative
(CMI)
 The Korean Peninsula Peace Process

The Korean Peninsula division is one of the most significant geopolitical fault lines in the NEA. A
multitude of domestic and foreign elements are at play in this situation. Internally, historical legacies
and ideological rivalry prevent meaningful discussion between contending groups, resulting in a
deterioration of the overall regional geopolitical situation (Qiu 2016)
 Other issues, some of which directly affect
China, Japan, and South Korea, such as
territorial conflicts, historical enmity, and
apprehension over a growing China, assist
to justify the hub-and-spokes structure
(Terada 2010; Zhang 2016)

Symbolic steps (such as the decision to

participate in the Olympics under a unified
Korea flag) indicate the emergence of a
new peace discourse.
 Encourage the three NEA states to seek broader cooperation, if it is
eventually successful in leading to a larger North American trade, deeper
infrastructure connectivity, and a more dynamic regional innovation
capacity.
 The Transatlantic Strategic Fissure
European regional unity and
institutional capacity may serve as a
model for the NEA core states in
terms of the practical functionality
of having a consistent regional
voice and institutional action in the
face of global challenges such as
trade wars and the diminishing of
international multilateral regimes.
 Conclusion
- Growing geopolitical and geoeconomic tendencies continue to
need important strategic realignments on the part of China, Japan,
and South Korea in their respective partnerships.
- The NEA is well-positioned to establish better institutions, as seen
by its rise as a significant trade region
- There are still several economic and political obstacles to
overcome. Economically, competition for foreign markets,
protracted negotiations over a trilateral free trade agreement, and
rivalry in international organizations obstruct efforts toward
comprehensive regionalism.
 Proceeding in hardship:
the trilateralism–
bilateralism nexus and
the institutional evolution
of China–Japan–South
Korea trilateralism

Zhang (2018)
 Trilateral institutions involving China, Japan, and South Korea have begun to
take shape in recent decades. This research examines its strengths and
weaknesses in terms of the relationship between trilateralism and bilateralism.
 Three Levels of Trilateralism
Historically, three broad-defined factors have been crucial in terms of their
movement, trajectory, and structure.

FUNCTIONAL MIDDLE HIGH POLITICS

COOPERATION
Wide range of pragmatic
POLITICS
Various trade facilitation diplomatic ties among the
and non-traditional and financial integration three countries, with a
security areas such as initiatives that combine special emphasis on
environmental protection complex economic and summit diplomacy.
and disaster relief. political negotiations
Minilateralism
Minilateralism is generally
recognized for its efficiency
due to the very small number
of total cooperative partners,
given that difficulties and
transaction costs are predicted
to be proportional to the
number of individuals engaged
in any multilateral
arrangement.
Environmental Protection & Disaster Management

China has become a major source of pollutants for Japan and Korea in terms of transnational
air and water pollution. The inauguration of the Tripartite Environmental Ministers Meeting
(TEMM) in January 1999 marked the first unified effort among the three countries to jointly
respond to cross-border environmental risks.
 Natural disaster management is another important area of functional and non-traditional
security cooperation in northeast Asia. Two earthquakes in China and Japan – the Wenchuan
earthquake in 2008 and the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 – acted as the critical juncture
that catalyzed the process of institution-building among the three countries.
 Global Financial Crisis

The outbreak of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 acted as a catalyst for the establishment of
the trilateral Free Trade Agreement. In contrast to the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s,
the Global Financial Crisis following the Lehman Shock in 2008 did not cause serious damage
to the financial sectors of China, Japan and Korea.
 Since the late 1990s, China–Japan–Korea trilateralism at the high politics level has proceeded cyclically and is
characterized by many ups and downs. In recent years, the bilateral disputes are seemingly further escalating, and their
restraining effects on the stability of cooperative trilateralism have been increasingly severe.
 Bilateral Disputes

Trilateral Summit diplomacy seemingly adopted a new pattern whereby trilateralism could
supplement bilateralism to help restore the fractures in bilateral relationships. whenever the
atmosphere for holding Japan–Korea and China–Japan bilateral summits is not conducive to
positive outcomes, the Trilateral Summit offers a backup option that should attract less
domestic resistance in all three countries.
 Conclusion
- Trilateralism among China, Japan and Korea has transformed
from a by-product of the APT events to an independent sub-regional
grouping.
- Many current studies have claimed that historical perspectives,
border claims, China–Japan regional competition, and US foreign
policy have hindered the strengthening and broadening of the
China–Japan–Korea triangle connection.
- Efforts to support trilateralism have continued, but challenges
remain.
1. Give us your thoughts on the video you watched.

2. What do you think are the advantages and

disadvantages of “regionalism”?

3. How beneficial is the ASEAN Plus 3 and/or Trilateral

Summit in establishing an Asian community,
particularly in the Northeast Asian region?