The 2nd Network of East Asian Think-tanks (NEAT) Conference
Dinner Speech by Prof. Ito Kenichi, President & CEO of The Japan Forum on InternationalRelations (JFIR)
August 16,2004
Bangkok, Thailand

A Japanese Perspective of the Community Building in East Asia
Excellencies and Distinguished Representatives,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my honor to be able to speak in this dinner meeting before the distinguished participants of the
2nd Annual Conference of the Network of East Asian Think-Tanks(NEAT). Taking advantage ofthis honorable occasion, I would like to address myself to you on the topic of “A Japanese
Perspective of the Community Building in East Asia.”
It is true that until recently we, Japanese, tended to be more passive, if not indifferent, to the conceptof an East Asian community. Of course, it didn’t mean that we, Japanese, failed to understand theimportance of the regional cooperation in East Asia. On the contrary, Japan has always been one ofthe major promoters of the regional cooperation in East Asia. Suffice it to say that Japan was oneof the countries that played a leading role in tackling with the 1997 financial crisis in East Asia, asdemonstrated by her contribution to the successful role played by the Chian Mai Initiative in theresolution of the crisis. But still, we, Japanese, must be said to have been behind the move
advocating community building in the region. This passiveness of Japan’s attitude toward theconcept of an East Asian community until the recent past might have been explained partly by her
reluctance to take an initiative in anything that might be associated with the memory of “The Greater
East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere” which was advocated by Japan during the Second World War.
Having said that, however, I can say that such was the case only until yesterday. Today, joining
with you in the 2nd Conference of NEAT, we are more determined to go along with you in thedirection of the creation of an East Asian community. In what were called “Issue Papers,” whichwere presented by the Government of Japan to the ASEAN+3 Foreign Ministers Meeting held inJakarta last month, it was stated that community building had now emerged as a shared future goal in
East Asia. What has brought about the change of our attitude? Or, better to say, what hasenlightened us? In my personal case, it was my experience to attend the 1st NEAT Conference heldin Beijing last September. I saw there for the first time in my life Asians coming from different
countries speaking in one voice and working for one purpose. I was touched by the aspiration of
the people assembled in that NEAT conference.
After returning home from Beijing, we, those who attended the conference, called on ourcountrymen to organize an all-Japan intellectual platform where we can deepen our understanding of
the concept of an East Asian community by way of conducting research and promoting policydebates among ourselves. Thus, “The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC)” wasinaugurated in Tokyo on May 18 this year. As of today, the membership of CEAC consists ofrepresentatives of 12 public policy think tanks and 15 business corporations in addition to 50

individuals who are mostly scholars but also include some journalists and politicians. In response
to our call, 9 government ministries such as Foreign Ministry, Finance Ministry, Trade and Industry
Ministry, Education and Science Ministry etc. also joined the activities of CEAC in their advisory
capacity of Counselors. Actually, all the members of the current Japanese delegation to this 2nd
Conference of NEAT are members of CEAC. One of the first topics which we discussed among
ourselves was whether an East Asian community was really necessary and feasible. I am happy toreport to you that the arguments we had were very positive and constructive.
Based on the results of such arguments within CEAC, but not in the name of CEAC as CEAC will
not be ready to announce its unified view until any time soon yet, I would like to present to you
today rather my personal view on the topic of “A Japanese Perspective of the Community Buildingin East Asia.” After the end of the Cold War the trend of regionalism spread all over the world
hand in hand with another trend of globalization. However, it was conspicuous until the recent pastthat two regions in the world were devoid of such regionalism. One was Middle East and anotherwas East Asia. Whereas it was understandable that Middle East failed to have its regionalism
because of the political, economic and cultural consequences of Arab-Israel confrontation, theabsence of regionalism in East Asia was never as much justifiable as in the case of Middle East.
Certainly, it was true that this part of the world has been long characterized by the unique diversity
in levels of economic development, traditional values, culture, ethnicity, religion, language, politicalregimes, etc. During the Cold War era political and ideological barriers hindered closer regional
cooperation. But these excuses had to give way to the more powerful forces of integration which
had brought about a gigantic change in the region, i.e. a drastic expansion of intra-regional
exchanges and interdependence, particularly after the end of the Cold War. Today’s East Asia is acenter of vast economic potential and dynamism. Now, a third of the world population resides inthis region. Its share of the global GDP accounts for one fifth, and countries in the region now holdabout a half of the world foreign reserves. The 1997 financial crisis in East Asia awakened peopleof the region to the need of a regional approach to secure their prosperity. It is said that a friend inneed is a friend indeed. Thanks to the crisis, we realized that our friends indeed were nobody but
our neighbors in the region.
Let me now proceed to the question of how to build a regional community in East Asia. When I
think about the history of regional integration in East Asia, I cannot help admiring the efforts madeby ASEAN nations. In East Asia where many handicaps exist for regional integration, ASEAN hasalways played a leading role. It has hosted a number of key forums of regional cooperation,including ASEAN＋１s, ASEAN＋3, PMC and ARF. These forums have nurtured the basis ofcommunity building in East Asia. It is known to us all that the NEAT conference itself for which
we meet here this evening was made possible under the framework designed by the ASEAN＋3. In
contrast to the European Union, where rule-making and institutionalization has been a driving force
for integration, in East Asia the idea of community building was originally inspired by the progressof various functional cooperation. To list just a few of them, we can mention Economic Partnership
Agreements, Chiang Mai Initiative, Asian Bond Market Initiative, Asia Broadband Initiative,
Mekong Region Development, and many other cooperation in the fields of terrorism, illicit drugtrafficking, sea piracy, non-proliferation, energy security, environmental protection, food security,health, intellectual property, etc. I must say that this approach to the community building wasbetter fit to the reality of East Asia as diversity was more salient here than in other regions. I am of2the opinion that the functional approach is a natural choice for community building in East Asia.
Having said that, however, I have to hurriedly add that community building cannot be achieved by
the mere promotion of the functional cooperation alone. If left alone at the mercy of either market
forces or arbitrary diplomatic bargaining, it can drift and lose sense of direction. Here I would liketo call your attention to the importance of the creation of a “sense of community” or a “sharedidentity as an East Asian.” A European friend of mine once told me that he was then a German butthat he would become a European once European integration had been achieved. He further addedthat then his German identity would not matter for him anymore. We, East Asians, are still at thestage of talking about “economic integration,” or at best “economic community.” Through thestrengthening of our functional cooperation, we may be soon able to talk about “energy community,”“environmental community” and many other types of “community” in the not so distant future.
Here, however, we must be reminded that we need a beacon that guides us in the direction toward
community building. Simple proliferation of functional cooperation alone is sure to lead us
nowhere. Of course, it is true that the functional cooperation facilitates the so-called “enmeshmentprocess,” which is indispensable for forging a “sense of community” in East Asia. But“enmeshment process” as such alone again fails to provide us with a beacon that is to guide us in ourdirection toward community building. Some other people argue that to narrow the developmental
gaps among countries in the region is the most important means for achieving a “shared identity as
an East Asian.” I agree with them. But let me add that narrowing the developmental gaps is oneof the means to achieve an objective of a “shared identity”. By nature, it fails to be a beacon thatguides us to the objective of “shared identity.” What then can be the beacon that can give us asense of direction toward our goal of “community building”?
What will take us in the direction
toward the objective of a “sense of community” and a “shared identity as an East Asian”? InEurope it was their conviction that they will never turn Europe into a battlefield again that played therole of such a beacon in their process of integration.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We need something more powerful than a “common interest”. Something beyond a “commoninterest” is needed. That is a “common value” to be shared by everybody in the region. It is mystrong conviction that a “sense of respect” for each other and a “principle of equality” among eachother are prerequisite for any meaningful “community building” in the region. This must be veryclear to anybody if he or she is reminded that the opposite “sense” and “principle” are a “sense ofsuperiority” and a “principle of domination.” Every nation, rich or poor, must be respected. Nonation, big or small, is allowed to dominate. On the basis of this “sense of respect” and this“principle of equality,” we can and should build confidence among ourselves. Our region must
become a region where each of us can be confident that our neighbors will never resort to the threator use of force as a means to settle international disputes. This is what is stipulated in Article 2,Section 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. Japan has its own Article 9 of the Constitution
stating, “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people
forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means ofsettling international disputes.” But, to tell the truth, what really matters is not a legal framework
but a state of affairs as having been achieved. Look at, for instance, Europe, where community
building has reached its highest level of development. Along the borders dividing any member
countries of the European Union, we see no tanks, missiles, fortresses directed against each other.
3For many reasons other than legal, i.e. political, economic and other, the member countries of theEuropean Union have come to a stage where it can be called a “no-war community.” Let me now
conclude my speech. We need a “common value” that goes beyond a “common interest”.
Starting from the “sense of respect” and the “principle of equality” among ourselves, we can andshould build confidence among ourselves. The confidence that our neighbors will never resort tothe threat or use of force as a means to settle international disputes would take us to the higher levelof “community building.” Here, what really matters is not a legal framework but a state of affairs
as having been achieved. Our “community building” can start from “economic community,” andadd “energy community,” “environmental community,” etc. But it must, before reaching the final
stage of an “East Asian Community,” accomplish “no-war community” in the region.
Thank you very much for your kind attention..

4