COE
Waseda University Global COE Program: Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration

The 4th International Symposium

Security Cooperation and Regional Integration in Asia

2010 12 3
Friday, December 3, 2010

International Conference Center, Waseda University
Ibuka Masaru Memorial Hall

GIARI

┠ḟ

ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘㊃᪨࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 4ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࣛ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 5㛤఍ᣵᣜ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 9㙊⏣⸅㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ࣭⥲㛗㸧ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࠕᆅᇦ⤫ྜࡢ᪂ᶵ㍈ࢆồࡵ࡚࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 11ኳඣ្㸦ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ &2(*,$5, ᣐⅬ࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࠊ᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ࣭ᩍᤵ㸧➨  㒊ࠕ⤫ྜ࡬ࡢ㘽ࢆᥱࡿㅖせᅉ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 25
Ⓨ⾲㸯ࠕᮅ㩭༙ᓥࡢᏳᐃ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 27ࢳ࢙࣭࢝ࣥ㸦㡑ᅜእ஺Ᏻ඲ಖ㞀◊✲㝔࣭ᩍᤵ㸧Ⓨ⾲㸰ࠕ୰ᅜࡢྎ㢌࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 57⋤㐓⯚㸦໭ி኱Ꮫ࣭ᩍᤵ㸧Ⓨ⾲㸱ࠕ⡿ᅜࡢࣉࣞࢮࣥࢫ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 61࣋ࣥࢪ࣑࣭ࣕࣥࢩࣗࣞ࢖࢔㸦࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ᅜ❧኱Ꮫᡓ␎㜵⾨◊✲ᡤ࣭ୖ⣭◊✲ဨ㸧㉁␲ᛂ⟅㸦➨㸯㒊㸧࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭69
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・➨㸰㒊ࠕ࢔ࢪ࢔ᆅᇦ༠ຊࡢ⌧≧࡜ㄢ㢟࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 77Ⓨ⾲㸲ࠕࣃ࣮࣡ࠊつ⠊࡜࢔ࢪ࢔ᆅᇦࡢไᗘᵓ⠏࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 79ᑎ⏣㈗㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ࣭ᩍᤵ㸧Ⓨ⾲㸳ࠕ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡜Ᏻ඲ಖ㞀ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 87࢔ࣛࢫࢸ࢔࣭࢖࢔࣭ࣥࢪࣙࣥࢫࢺࣥ㸦ࣁ࣮ࣂ࣮ࢻ኱Ꮫ࣭ᩍᤵ㸧Ⓨ⾲㸴ࠕ㠀ఏ⤫ⓗᏳ඲ಖ㞀࡜ $6($1࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ࠖ
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 103ࣜࢨ࣮࣭ࣝࢫࢡ࣐㸦࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ᅜ㝿ᡓ␎◊✲ᡤ࣭ᡤ㛗 ㉁␲ᛂ⟅㸦➨㸰㒊㸧࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 107㛢఍ᣵᣜ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 116᳜ᮌ㸦ᕝ຾㸧༓ྍᏊ㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ࣭ᩍᤵ㸧௜㘓㸦㸯㸧㸯᪥┠࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 118௜㘓㸦㸰㸧ཧຍ⪅ ⤒Ṕ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 122Objectives of the Symposium
Peace and stability are prerequisites for Asian regional integration. We are hopeful the de facto integration ofregional economies will contribute to peace in the region. However, it is also a fact that many security
problems still exist in the area. Countries pursue military buildup and nuclear weapons development.
Disagreements over territorial issues are yet to be resolved. For regional integration to occur, the biggest
question is whether or not cooperation and integration extend to the security realm.
There have been efforts to build a regional multilateral security institution like the ASEAN Regional Forum(ARF) but the region is still heavily dependent on the bilateral alliances of the United States.
As cooperation in economy and other fields continue to develop, can the U.S. bilateral alliances continue tomaintain regional security? Alternatively, in the long term, will the countries in the region be able to maintainregional security by themselves? Is the U.S. presence in the region an impediment or a stimulus to regional
cooperation? How is the region to manage the rise of China?
This symposium addresses the issues of regional integration and regional security. We ask two questions:
What are the determinants of regional security cooperation? And what is the current status and future
prospects for regional security cooperation? We hope the symposium will provide a forum for both academic
and policy relevant debates.

4

5

Program Outline of the Symposium
9:00
Door opens
9:30-9:40
Kaoru Kamata (President, Waseda University)
9:40- 10:00
Satoshi Amako (Global COE Program GIARI Project Leader; Professor, Waseda University)
10:10-12:10
Session 1: Key Determinants of Asian Regional Integration
MC:
Hatsue Shinohara (Professor, Waseda University)
Discussants:
Alastair Iain Johnston (Professor, Harvard University),
Chikako Kawakatsu Ueki (Professor, Waseda University)
10:10-10:30

6

Kang Choi (Professor, Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security)
10:30-10:50
Wang Yizhou (Professor, Beijing University)
10:50-11:10
Benjamin Schreer (Senior Lecturer, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University
11:10-12:10
Discussions, Questions & Answers
12:10-14:00
Lunch
14:00-16:30
Session 2: Asian Regional Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges
MC:
Chikako Kawakatsu Ueki (Professor, Waseda University)
Discussants:
Benjamin Schreer (Senior Lecturer, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University
Rumi Aoyama (Professor, Waseda University)
14:00-14:20
Takashi Terada (Professor, Waseda University)
14:20-14:40
Alastair Iain Johnston (Professor, Harvard University)
14:40-15:00
and NonRizal Sukma (Executive Director, Centre for Strategic and International Studies)
15:00-15:20
Coffee Break
15:20-16:20
Discussions, Questions & Answers
16:20-16:30
Chikako Kawakatsu Ueki (Professor, Waseda University)
17:00-19:00
Reception

7

8

COE

4

120
560
180

4,000
200

21

1
2

1

COE

5

9

10

Agenda: Searching for a New Linchpin of Asian Regional Integration
Satoshi Amako
COE GIARI(Global COE GIARI Program Leader; Professor, Waseda University)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Agenda: Searching for a New Linchpin of Asian Regional Integration
Satoshi Amako(Global COE GIARI Program Leader; Professor, Waseda University)
Understanding the International Structure of the Asia-Pacific Region
How should we understand the present state of international affairs, in particular, international
relations in Asia? Three features stand out: first, a significant change in the international system; second, theregionalization ofvariety of terms, including the Cold War structure and the hegemonic system, were used to characterize theinternational system of the 20 th century. In any case, the Cold War structure has already been dismantled. The
term describing the longest standing international system up to today is the Westphalian system (nation-statesystem). It refers to the effort after the conclusion of the Thirty Years War in 1648 to establish a stableinternational order among territorial states with fixed national borders, serving as the core constituents ofinternational society.
This system spread around the globe with the subsequent rise of European nations in theinternational arena. To put it in different terms, the nation-state system considers states to be the main actors
in international society, and attempts to create an international order based on agreements between states,
including the agreement not to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states. As is widely known, thenation-state system remains unchallenged till today, and resolutely preserves the status of the major actors.
However, with the advance in recent years of bilateral cooperation, interdependence and interaction
in a variety of areas centered around economics and information, the areas that traditionally had been
considered to be under the purview of national sovereignty are being eroded. For example, in the realm of
economics, multinational corporations, foreign direct investment, trade liberalization, and financial
cooperation have shattered the traditional concepts of national economy and national interests, and generated
a new stratified structure based on common interest. Yet this does not mean that the nation-state system isgradually dissolving and that the tide of trans-nationalism is on the rise to the extent that the international
system is experiencing a shift from the nation-state (NS) system to a trans-nation (TN) system.
It is likely that, at least in the 21 st century, international society will continue to feature thecoexistence and interaction of the values, roles, and functions of both the NS and the TN systems. I refer toan amalgam of these two as a nation and trans-nation (N-TN) system. In the present era, in which thesignificance of the N-TN system is beginning to increase, we should not underestimate the significance ofcooperation and interdependence in areas outside the realm of politics and state sovereignty. We must not
subordinate the logic and practice of transnational actors to those of nation states. However, it can also be
said that, since the institutionalization of the TN aspect of the system has not progressed, despite the steadytransition to an N-TN system, when interstate tensions increase, national sovereignty comes before anythingelse. The recent suspension of China-Japan economic and cultural exchanges resulting from the conflict over
the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands is a case in point.
The second feature, encapsulated in the notion of the regionalization of globalization, is that,paradoxically, the progress of globalization has had regional consequences, mainly by facilitating the trend ofregionalization. The transnational movement of goods, people, and money on a global scale brings with it avariety of regional issues and problems. Against this background, we now face challenges for regional
cooperation and integration. In post-war Japan, the governmental agencies, such as the Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Finance, pushed forward the Japanese economy while
protecting Japanese businesses, in order to enhance their ability to compete internationally. The national
economy within the nation-state was the dominant paradigm in the post-war era. Prior to the war, theexpansion of the national economy through colonization was seen as an additional means of securing thenational economy.
However, since the 1990s, the pace of market liberalization has exhibited a remarkable increase,and the trend towards deregulation and the elimination of tariff barriers has intensified. This is the so-calledtide of globalization. Multinational corporations have expanded beyond the boundaries of national

18

economies and their profits have come to be shared by their business partners in other countries. Yet this has
not led to instantaneous globalization, but to the entry of multinational corporations into Asia and to thepromotion of Asian regional cooperation through economic initiatives such as ODA. Thus, the global trend
accelerated the move towards regional integration through trade, investment, and financial cooperation.
In addition, we face a number of global issues related to human security and non-traditional
security, such as increasing environmental degradation, the spread of infectious diseases, frequent large-scale
natural disasters, and the increasing gap between rich and poor across Asia. As one of its advocates, Japan
has taken a proactive stance towards human security that crosses national borders. China is suffering from avariety of environmental problems including acid rain, CO 2 emissions, SO2 pollution, the pollution of
streams and rivers, and waste disposal. To be sure, China is not alone in this area, and it is necessary torecognize that these trans-border issues are common challenges to non-traditional security in the Asian
region as a whole.
Advancement of de facto Trans-border Regional Cooperation and Integration
The two features discussed above have prompted de facto cooperation and integration in Asia. Fivepoints are noteworthy in this respect. First, we can observe the de facto advancement of transnational
phenomena. For example, the expansion of multinational corporations has created multinational interests.
The traditional unique mass culture of each country is being changed dramatically by the trans-border tide,and this is evident in the increase in international marriages, changes in national identities, the increase in thenumber of individuals living overseas for a long time, and the exchange of culture and information, including
popular culture such as manga, anime, and other types of entertainment. The sharing of common interests
through economic, social, and cultural interactions, made possible by the advancement of regional
cooperation and interdependence, unequivocally demonstrates that national borders have become lessrelevant than ever before.
Second, as is often noted, the advancement of de facto regional integration has been remarkable.
The global-level approach to promoting regional integration has underlined the advancement of free tradethrough the removal of tariff barriers, the guiding principle of the WTO. However, total barrier-free
conditions are difficult to achieve over the short run. As such, a more practical approach, to do what can bereasonably done, has been adopted, resulting in the creation and spread of FTAs, worked out on acase-by-case basis between regions and countries. However, underlying this development was preexisting
intraregional trade, direct investments, and technology transfers, i.e. advances in cooperation andinterdependence towards regional integration. It is in this historical context that bilateral FTAs, EPAs, ECFAs,
and partial regional FTAs have emerged today.
Third, globalization has spread some negative social phenomena across borders, leading to theformation of de facto cooperative networks in specific areas. In particular, the trans-border nature of
atmospheric pollution (e.g. CO 2 emissions and acid rain) and environmental pollution, due to waste products
and waste water, the trans-border nature of infectious diseases such as SARS, HIV, and avian influenza, theincrease in severity of the gap between rich and poor in many parts of Asia, have become common to theentire Asian region. In response to these challenges, expert groups and NGOs have formed a variety
networks beyond national borders to establish cooperative relationships to find solutions to these problems.
Fourth, the trans-border nature of daily life has led to the de facto dissolution of national identities.
For example, a rapid increase in the mobility of goods, people, culture, and information beyond borders has
enabled the economic, social, and cultural interactions and collaborative activities of individuals beyond
national borders, the sharing of the benefits of such interactions, and the emergence of regional cooperationand interdependence that makes such interactions possible. In addition, the idea of national identity is being
challenged by the increasing number of international marriages and the number of expatriates living abroadfor extended periods of time. These trends over the last two decades are especially notable in Asia.
Finally, the intertwining of these various trends has had the effect of substantially removing
national borders relative to the past and of calling for the partial modification or transformation of theconcepts of national sovereignty, national consciousnesses, and national interests. That is to say that the defacto dissolution of national sovereignty has begun, to a certain extent. Of course, it is undeniable that thenotion of national sovereignty is strongly supported in Asia, and that nation-states remain important actors in
the international society. However, while the relativization of national interests as well as the stratificationand diversification of identity are proceeding, the relativization of some aspects of national sovereignty and19national interests as well as the stratification and diversification of sovereignty is on the increase. As aconsequence, the very foundation of the nation-state system is, if only in part, being dissolved. And so, I
believe that the transition to the N-TN system discussed above has begun.

In addition to the two features discussed thus far
a significant systemic change and theregionalization of globalization a third feature can also be considered: the rise of China. Three decades
have passed since China shifted to a reform and open policy and began its efforts toward modernization. In
terms of culture, China hosted the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. In terms
est
economy. In terms of its military, after 20 years of continuous double-digit increase in military expenditures,experts agree that China has become a military superpower, second only to the United States. Indeed, somehave come to call these two superp
evolution of the international system, the successor to the U.S.-Soviet-China three-party system that emergedin the 1980s and the Cold War system dominated by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.
remains, as previously, at a high level; and, as evidenced by its large-scale trade surplus with the U.S., China
In this context, taking decisive action and committing to large-scale internal investment to increase domestic
demand, China not only achieved economic recovery faster than any other country but also managed toregain its previous vigorous growth in GDP. With an enormous population, sustained economic growthcoupled with increasing domestic purchasing power, and measures to stimulate domestic consumption with
abundant investment, it can be said that, beyond being the factory of the world, China has increased its
potential to become the market of the world.
Although Chinese leaders have stated emphatically that their country will not become a superpower
or a hegemonic power, in addition to the on-going transformation into an economic and military superpower,
China has proactively begun to try to increase its global influence through soft power. This is symbolized by
the push in recent years to establish Confucius Institutes in countries around the world to promote theChinese language and Chinese culture. Furthermore, China also started its first full-fledged English-language
broadcast by Xinhua News Agency, with sights set squarely on CNN and the BBC. Of course, suchsoft-power attempts have not always achieved their intended effect, evoking, instead, images of China as a
power is undeniable; while its serious internal problems are
growing, China can be said to be the only country with the capacity to stand up to the U.S.

n regional integration? It is not an exaggeration
to say that this issue represents the most significant challenge to the future of Asia. Motivated by a sense of
caution regarding the rise of China, Toshio Watanabe, president of Takushoku University, who has
advocated and contributed to Asian regional integration since the 1990s, published Shin-datsu-a-ron (Post
De-Asianization) in 2008, in which he explained his position as follows.
In order for East Asia to achieve the next level of integration, it should work to create amultilayered network of functional institutional mechanisms to support liberalization in the Asian region by
actively promoting the formation of bilateral and multilateral FTAs and EPAs. However, the ultimate goal of
East Asian integration should be the establishment of functional institutional mechanisms such as FTAs and
EPAs and nothing more. This region lacks the conditions necessary for the development of a sense of
Furthermore, as it should becommunity, an East Asian community would be a dangerous path for Japan, of course, and for East Asia as awhole (p. 286).
The m
network of functional institutional mechanisms, what needs to be avoided is the creation of a system in favor
up dominating weaker countries, resulting from the20

argues that it is by maintaining the U.S.-Japan alliance that Japan can economically advance into East Asianand Chinese markets without fear.
status; rather, I agree with some aspects of this view. However, there are several fundamental problems withhis assessment. Firstly, if the creation of a robust, multilayered functional economic network is achieved, willbrought about such a network would demand that the next step be taken.
Secondly, his argument relies on the presumption that community means a common housegoverned under a Chinese hegemonic framework. However, is this inevitable? The term community itself is
open to a variety of interpretations. In some cases, one could call the framework of integration created by theaccumulation of functional cooperative efforts a community. This was certainly the case for the European
Community (EC), predecessor of the European Union (EU). Furthermore, no examples of a common houseeven exist in Asia. To decide that this is a house for Chinese hegemony is too prejudicial and is a leap in
logic. Rather, Japan should be proactive in contributing to the creation of a community that is not built onhegemonic relations.
Thirdly, and most importantly, if there is no further development of the integration framework
beyond the creation of functional institutions and networks, continuing within such a framework will only
accelerate unbalanced economic development and will intensify the survival of the fittest. More specifically,
under which the economies of weaker neighboring countries will be eroded. For example, if we examine
Asian countries, resulting in the rapid increase of mutual trade. The success of the Greater Mekong
Sub-Region Plan (GM-Southfrom Kunming in China to southern Thailand serve as examples of the rapid advancement in economic
cooperation and infrastructure construction under Chinese leadership. Indeed, these ASEAN and Chinese
In addition, in June, 2010, the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between
ECFA, the number of free trade items allowed for Taiwan greatly exceeds the number for China. As a result,Taiwan has gained a more advantageous position in the Chinese market than Japan and Korea; the greaterthan 9% growth experienced by the Taiwanese economy in 2010 over the previous year can be said to be dueto the ECFA effect. In response to the signing of the ECFA, Korea has started to proactively pursue an FTA
with China, and it is expected that the two countries will begin full-scale negotiations in 2011. Should Japanlag behind in establishing an FTA with China, Japanese exports to China, its largest trading partner, will be ata significantly disadvantageous position. The less enthusiastic Japan becomes in establishing an FTA with
China, the harsher will be the environment for the Japanese economy.
From de facto to Formal Asian Regional Integration
The functional approach is often regarded as the basic method toward achieving regional
integration. Asia comprises a diversity of values, standards of living, as well as economic development andpolitical systems. In such an environment, any cooperation will have to be functional. In order to solve
various problems and to attain common interests, the formation of networks of expert groups, governments,
and NGOs, taking a functional approach, will be both realistic and effective. In this respect what can be
regarded as a problem-solving formula in the economic arena should take the shape of prioritizing economic
growth while pursuing the goal of sustainability. The question of how to achieve sustainable development
while dealing with intensifying environmental issues remains one of the main challenges today. In terms of
non-traditional security, there is a need to form networks to cooperatively address a variety of individual
problems such as (1) poverty and social issues, (2) environmental protection, (3) energy conservation, (4)natural disasters, and (5) infectious disease, and to resolve common issues such as pirates, the protection ofsea lanes, and regional-scale natural disasters.
In addition what can be regarded as a mutual-benefit formula should involve, in its economic
sphere, the formation of FTAs, a common currency, and a common market; and in its development and social

21

environment sphere, the creation and implementation of a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
Furthermore, for the sake of human security, coordinated security efforts and regional cooperation towards
collective security can be explored, and for the sake of non-traditional security, the joint development ofclean energy and energy storage can be explored as a means of generating common benefits.
In any case, regarding both the problem-solving and mutual-benefit formulas, the formation of
networks is an important starting point and conduit for developing cooperative mechanisms. The three main
actors in these networks are governments, groups of individuals forming NGOs, and the respective
organizations of medical, environment, and disease control experts. It is important that these groups organize
themselves and form networks. Considering the current conditions in Asia, individual government agencies
play a large role to govern the network as a whole. Trans-border coordination of these three actors isextremely important; the institutionalization of this coordination is the challenge.
In addition to these two formulas, if the formation of a pan-Asian community is indeed a futuregoal, the creation of networks to promote a common lifestyle and cultural identity will need to be considered.
If, hypothetically, the daily lives and culture of people in the Asian region become closely connected, if
traditional ideologies and cultures become fused and develop into a common ideology and culture, and if apan-Asian identity evolves, there will emerge a new sense of we-ness, which is different from a sense ofbeing Chinese or Japanese. I believe that it is important to see this as the ultimate goal and to keep this inmind.
To achieve this goal, the actors must become connected, undertake cooperative action, and shareverse. One of the goals
the sense of weof Asian integration is to realize a harmonious society through strengthening a sense of cohesiveness by
undertaking and successfully concluding a variety of cooperative actions. The framework necessary toachieve this should be incorporated into the process of constructing a comprehensive structure, covering theentire region, in the context of pursuing benefits for the region as a whole. The sense of we-ness and thecreation of a harmonious society should be achieved through the creation of these frameworks forcooperation.
One final point that should be made is that, to push regional integration to the next level, a
conscious effort must be made to advance strategic-coordination and bottom-up approaches. By
strategic-coordination approach, I mean the strategic promotion and coordination of efforts toward
cooperative security, joint energy development, joint energy storage, and so on. By bottom-up approach, I
mean the networking of NGO activities and cooperation, the building of connections between NGOs andexpert groups and relevant government agencies, intended to tackle human security issues such as theprotection of the environment, the prevention of infectious diseases, the alleviation of poverty, the protectionof human rights, and so on. The overall framework that synthesizes these functional, strategic-coordination,and bottom-up approaches could be called an Olympic torch approach.
Toward Asian Regional Cooperation: Our Future Tasks(1) Promotion of economic regional cooperation (Japan-China-Korea FTA) as a starting point for developing
an East Asian FTA:
i.
tions: (a)keep up the current pace of East Asian economic development; (b) learn from the EU (the keys tosuccess are to advance intraregional integration, stimulate intraregional investment, enhance politicalstability, etc.); (c) use this as a chance for Japan to increase its low degree of dependence on foreign
trade; (d) use this as an opportunity to break away from an inwardly-directed Japan; (e) advance
multidimensional regional cooperation; (f) learn from the Asian currency crisis (pursue an AMF
starting with regional financial cooperation); and (g) support peaceful and politically-stabledevelopment in China.
ii.
(and Taiwan) and to use this Japan-Korea cooperation as a base for negotiating an FTA with China(by achieving fundamental agreement on a Japan-Korea FTA).

22

iii.
The goal should be to increase theentry into the free market and the trade of agricultural products. To achieve this, it will be importantto (a) establish market differentiation of Japanese agricultural products and transition to an exportindustry (by supporting the development of necessary infrastructure, training of personnel, etc.); (b)transform local agricultural cooperatives from interest groups into nuclei for production, marketing,and developing human resources.
(2) Promotion of Mechanisms for Non-Traditional Security in Asia:i.

Convert networks dealing with (a) alleviation of poverty and social problems, (b) environmental
protection, (c) energy conservation, (d) natural disaster response, and (e) prevention of infectious
diseases into multilayered cooperative organizations. The key will be to establish a
track of and collecting information related to the activities of specialist groups and NGO groups andnetworks dealing with (a) through (e) above, and to develop mechanisms for facilitating thecoordination and cooperation of these groups with relevant government agencies.

ii.

Cooperative efforts to achieve non-traditional security will be extremely important not only in(3) Establishment of an Asia-Pacific Security Treaty Organization:i.

Start with a realistic assessment of the status quo and take a realistic approach to incrementally
expanding and deepening relations. Specifically, (a) while taking a traditional (hard), zero-sum
approach to security as a basis, endeavor to actualize regional multilateral security cooperation. The
rationale behind developing such an organization would be the ability to coordinate a joint response
to foreign or potential threats or to mutually inhibit or restrain the actions of internal actors. In any
event, any response to a threat cannot be made without the presence of the U.S. As such, it isnecessary to create a mechanism for regional multilateral security that involves the United States.

ii.

A permanent Japan-U.S.-China security forum should be established. This is because, at present
and even more so in the future the U.S.-Japan security treaty is essential since even the U.S. alone
would be incapable of restraining the threat of China; on the other hand, the U.S.-Japan security
treaty represents the greatest threat to China. Such a forum, therefore, should be established not only
for the purpose of mutual restraint, but also to pursue positive results, such as the reduction ofantagonistic sentiments and the reduction of real tension through participation in such a framework.

iii.

In Asia, there currently exist a number of forums, including the six-party talks dealing with North-La Dialogue providing a discussion forum for Asia as a whole,
the Asian Regional Forum (ARF) as a forum to discuss security issues in an expanded ASEAN
setting, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) initiated by China. Yet, taking all of these
into consideration, the most essential and substantial framework for coordinating efforts would be a
Japan-U.S.-China security forum. In the future, the forum can be used as a starting point to address
the security issues of other Asian countries.

iv.

The final goal should be to develop an Asia-Pacific Security Treaty Organization (APSTO). A
Japan-U.S.-China security treaty, in addition to the U.S.-Japan security treaty, should reside within
this organization. APSTO would further be envisioned to include Korea, Australia, New Zealand,
ASEAN, and others. It goes without saying that such a security framework would be impossible in
the near future, but I want to propose it here as a goal to be worked towards.

23

v.

The actions proposed here should guide the transition from the NS system to the N-TN system
discussed at the beginning of this paper. Within this new paradigm, the idea of joint sovereignty
should become the foundation for the resolution of on-going territorial and territorial-water disputes
between Japan and China, between Japan and Korea, and between various East Asian countries andChina; in addition, stable international governance can be achieved by formalizing andinstitutionalizing the multidimensional and multilayered forums for dialogue comprising the TN
system.

In this manner, it is expected that the development of a mechanism for non-traditional security in
Asia, the establishment of an Asia-Pacific Security Treaty Organization on the basis of a Japan-U.S.-China
security forum, and economic cooperation in APEC will progress, parallel with the comprehensive
integration of the region. When we enter the stage of formal and comprehensive regional integration, thespecific nature and boundaries of Asian integration are certain to evolve. The most critical key will bewhether Asia, over a relatively long time span, is able to develop a structure for collective action, common
interests and mutual sympathy.

24

2010
2007
1995
2006
2006
Construction within Contradiction: Multiple
Perspectives on the relationship between China and International Organizations)
Professor and Deputy director of School of International Studies, Peking University. Former deputy directorof Institute World Economic & Politics, Chinese Academy of Science (CASS) and Professor of international
politics, senior fellow. Graduate School of CASS, Beijing, received MA. and Ph.D degrees, 1982-1988. He
was visiting Scholar, Hungary Academy of Sciences in 1988 and Associate Professor and researcher of
CASS, 1988-1993. He became visiting Scholar, at CFIA of Harvard University during 1996-97. He became
IR theories in the West and China and trends of international institutions and Laws. His publications are
Construction within Contradiction: Multiple Perspectives on the relationship between
China and International Organizations

127